Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 8 July 10 >

Purge server cache

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as G7. The JPStalk to me 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2030 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Nearly entirely speculation. -- dcclark (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK sorry or going ahead, delete then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Chompiras (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy G7 per author's comment. El Chompiras, the thing to do now is add {{db-author}} to the top of the article, which will complete the process satisfactorialy. Tevildo 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too far in the future. --A bit iffy 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't read above properly. The creator of the article has him/her self agreed to deletion. --A bit iffy 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedily userfied self-published author still at college. Just zis Guy you know? 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Otterland[edit]

Is an autobiography (user - talk) of an author who has self-published one book which also appears to be lacking independent review or significant sales figures. Why I appreciate the book's topic, I don't think this is really the place to list its author, or the book itself. GreenReaper 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Possibly an A7. "A half-deer, half-otter fursona, with purple fur and purple-feathered wings." Oh God - we have a reputation to overcome, folks, this sort of thing doesn't help it. :) Tevildo 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WTF?!?! This is a vanity article, not an attack page?!?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and speedy delete per CSD-A7 - no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy delete was removed on the basis that the "fantasy author" part was an assertion of notability. GreenReaper 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedily userfied, self-published book by author still at college. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Org's Odyssey: A Tale of Post-Human Earth[edit]

Article was written by the author (user - talk), and refers to a book that does not appear to have significant sales, independent reviews, or indeed any significant commentary elsewhere. Google results are mostly listings of the book or promotional postings by the author. It does not appear to meet any of the guidelines for inclusion. GreenReaper 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to WikiFur. Not that I've heard of it, but it sounds like the sort of thing we'd enjoy. :) Tevildo 21:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GreenReaper 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming viking[edit]

I love Cheers a lot (hell, I wrote most of the article on it) and the episode is an important one in the series, but a fictional drink mentioned in maybe 5 minutes of one episode of one TV show is not notable enough for an article. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - non-notable, poorly organized (looks like it was written in less than a minute), no citations/references/external links. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - perhaps it can be included in List of fictional beverages, but it needs to be expanded first; there is no way it requires a new page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wrote the article -- Since when is the time taken to write it a consideration -- Aren't people supposed to expand articles at their leisure. In any case, I thought it was a funny reference that anyone who knows it would laugh when they hear it. Just thought I would add my two cents, delete it or not. Settersr 20:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fictional drink. Maybe merge with List of fictional beverages if any useful content can be added. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge with list. JChap (Talk) 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply put it in the list mentioned above and delete per nom... The drinks in the list are only the name of the drink and the show/movie it was in... Nothing to merge here. Grandmasterka 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to black hair. Have tagged the new article to have the copy-n-paste move fixed. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jet black hair[edit]

We already have brunette. If this content is to be kept it should be moved to Black hair Ideogram 07:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brunette is westerners. We are talking about other ethnicities. 168.253.15.112 17:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brunette is dark brown hair. It would be interesting to have an article on black hair and the genetics/cultural signifigance behind it. But it should by moved to Black hair. Dgies 07:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dgies. J Milburn 11:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Black hair. Appears to refer to that anyway, plus larger scope. Luna Santin 12:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black hair - obviously a subtype of black hair so would be better to keep them togetherMammal4 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no black hair article. 168.253.15.112 17:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the argument is that Jet black hair is too specific, and should become part of a new article called Black hair, which would have more scope Mammal4 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Black is brunette in terms of color, but Brunettes have brown hair. Brunettes are considered westerners where there are different hair color. Black hair is Jet black hair, otherwise it's considered brunette and is western. What else would be included in black hair, brunette's, no, only jet black hair. That's it. 168.253.15.112 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rename as Black hair--Childzy talk contribs 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. What is the difference between black and jet black? If hair isn't completely black, then it's brown, black doesn't have shades (it's technically a tone, rather than a colour, if memory serves). --Tango 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is moved to Black hair

This seems to be a consensus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.253.15.112 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please do not remove AfD tags until the AfD has been formally closed by an admin. Thank you. Tevildo 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article itself has no sources and seems POV. It'll need a massive rewrite. --ColourBurst 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black hair; the two pages are very similar. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above; nom provided no reasons relevant to deletion policy. As a side note, it's generally a bad idea to make major changes (such as a move) during an AfD debate, as it makes it difficult for users to determine exactly what's going on. As far as I can tell from looking at the page histories, black hair did not exist prior to this debate, thus it was a move and not a merge, and we need an admin to repair the copy-and-paste move and merge the page histories. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have black hair under hair color and this unsourced WP:OR article doesn't make it clear there is more to write about the topic. If someone wants to expand and source it, it might be a keep, but not in the curent state. ~ trialsanderrors 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles that exist should be deleted doesn't mean this one should exist. Feel free to file AFD's against the other articles. --Ideogram 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just bringing up relativity. 168.253.15.112 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia policy that establishes relativity as a criterion. All articles must stand up on their own merit. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say and imply that what I said is a policy. Without mechanical and cyborg answer, I hope I made my point, but you are welcome to disagree though. My main concern and implication is that this article and argument has become so ethnocentric, so blonde loving and worshipping individuals that they forgot to file AfD against the blonde articles, especially the platinum and strawbery blondes, that they are attacking and feeling threatened by black hair color, which is common among non-whites. Just to give you something to think about. You are welcome to give your cyborg answer though. I agree that it should stand on its own, but ethnocentrism is playing huge role in this discussion. I think black hair shouldn't be filed for AfD (some white person filed it), but strawberry and platinum blonde should be filed many years ago (minutes after it was created) and deleted with 100% delete agreement. 168.253.15.112 06:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying it's irrelevant. --Ideogram 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was, the statement should be made so that we can better wikipedia in general, so that not just one article is attacked, but others should get notice. It's just for the betterment of wikipedia and objective judge of the articles. 168.253.15.112 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed them, feel free to nominate them for deletion. --Ideogram 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say black hair is rare? It's by far the most common hair colour, if I'm not greatly mistaken... --Tango 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I didn't say that. I was just arguing about the strawberry blonde, platinum blonde articles as having a basis for deletion. That's all. Black hair especially jet black is very common. 168.253.15.112 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that it was a content fork, except with no sourced content. If it were a topic that didn't get covered elsewhere I'd go with the "worthy of expansion" argument but the editors at hair color (not long on sources in the first place) should get back to the drawing board and create enough sourced content before they should think about forking. As about the other ones, some should definitely go. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that black hair is already mentioned in the hair color article, but each of the other sections there also link to a main article on blonde, red hair, and brunette. It is not a content fork--this sort of structure of having a short summary at a main article and then a full article elsewhere is common throughout Wikipedia. Just because it's a stub and needs expansion doesn't mean it should be deleted; it means it should be expanded. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 02:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, wrong terminology. I didn't mean to imply that black hair can't stand on its own as a more detailed discussion of hair color. I meant to say that the article as it is now cannot stand, and unless someone adopts and sources it needs to be folded back into hair color. The content as it is is just random stuff. (Hitler's hair is depicted as jet black??) ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it should be sourced, with the Hitler example. But is generally true though most Westerners will believe it's true. It's pop culture and everyone will agree. 168.253.15.112 06:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not making any sense. It's "just random stuff," what is the evidence that you claim that it random? Are you being subjective? Ethnocentric? You just can't claim stuff and make it delete it. But the Hitler assumption should be source, but is common sense for people168.253.15.112 06:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is his hair depicted as "blonde" then? He has dark brown hair. 168.253.15.112 06:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American diesel depot[edit]

Looks like plain old spam/advertizing. This problem was previously noted on the talk page but I'm not sure there's anything notable to be added. Dgies 06:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete per WP:CORP Treebark (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to The Poseidon Adventure -- Samir धर्म 13:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Posiden Adventure[edit]

Article has wrong title --HamedogTalk|@ 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Not a CSD candidate in itself, but a snowball is telling me to give this page a strong dose of morphine and perform its last rites. Kimchi.sg 12:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KBIT FM[edit]

Apparently doesn't exist, and certainly hasn't existed since the late 60's as the author claims. Can't be found searching the web, isn't in the SD FM template, doesn't exist at the FCC FM license search page. Note that this contributor also recently created an article for KWLD, which was speedied about a week ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment. The article's author has erased the AFD tag on the article at least twice. [1] [2] [3] -- Mikeblas 03:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Up for G1, G3 (I think), and G7 at the moment - also comfortably within A1 and A3 as it stands. _And_ as hoax per nom. Tevildo 00:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. Only KBIT I found via REC Netwas a TV station in Chico, CA. --DarkAudit 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete. Theres already XHRM at 92.5, plus I also believe this article is a hoax, since the closest 92.3 signal is in Los Angeles, currently occupied by KHHT. Robert Moore 01:04, 9 July 2006
  • Speedy Delete -- Alias Flood 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 01:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article is confused, unreliable and WP:HOAX. eg 'Urban adult' is a 90s formatting term, not 70s. Also per nom.--Coil00 02:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per the above. Hoax.Bridesmill 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete,per nom as WP:HOAX, I just reverted the article again making that's maybe 4 times now the author and an ip has erased the afd.--John Lake 04:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I lived in San Diego for a couple of years recently and there was no KBIT FM. This can't be in the vote because it would be original research but it's true.--John Lake 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was this article ends in the same as every fairy tale in which the Prince and the Princess live happily together ever after—and have their story deleted from Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratana Burapharat[edit]

Delete, this appears to be original research. Gay Cdn 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Either that or plagiarized, and those caps are getting on my nerves. tmopkisn tlka 01:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. When an editor, 'powerful' or otherwise, addresses you directly in the copy, mmm, time to delete. --Coil00 01:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just look at it. Danny Lilithborne 03:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fiction. (except for a grand total of Zero Ghits on the name...)Bridesmill 03:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "If I mention Ratana Burapharat, a lot of you might wonder who is she?" ... Not really. Is she a friend of Mr. Google? [4]. Apparently not. --IslaySolomon 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Near incomprehensible. Probably meets A7 as well. --DarkAudit 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non-notable nonsense. Rob 10:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. J Milburn 12:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bridesmill and IslaySolomon. Luna Santin 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of College Education to Police Patrolman Performance[edit]

Delete as original research. Gay Cdn 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ~ trialsanderrors 00:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Emc² (CONTACT ME) 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Bridesmill 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom original research.--John Lake 04:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may have already been "published" as a doctoral dissertation, so I'm not sure that it's OR, but it's not particularly notable research. The author also created Gerald Griffin (apparently about himself) and Hilliard Guy Griffin, both of which contain some unverified claims that if true might establish notability about those people. Not sure about what to do with those articles.--Chaser T 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Childzy talk contribs 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plagarism; not wikipedia material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either original research or plagiarism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, quite unencyclopedic. Grandmasterka 05:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research with justa whiff of a barrow being pushed. Just zis Guy you know? 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy A1 since none of us can work out what the hell it's supposed to be about. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to other Ten Thirteen Productions shows[edit]

Delete as it is simply a list of loosely associated topics . Gay Cdn 00:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan W. Hansen[edit]

Not clear from article why this minister is notable. NawlinWiki 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmmm. THe related article YouthQuake also needs attention. Bwithh 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not quite A7 territory, but well short of WP:BIO. And - "both a national event and one that can be exported to various regions of the United States"? A disturbing use of the word "national", if that's what the author meant to say. Tevildo 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACTS 29 has a long history and is the oldest renewal ministry of any denomination. As its president, Fr. Hansen carries a national stature. Regarding the use of national vs. regional, the youth event has one conference in North Carolina that attracts people from Montana to Florida. It also has hosted events in California, Michigan and Texas that attracted people only from those states -- and who did not make the trip to North Carolina. capnpen 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 02:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO Alphachimp talk 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - doesn't look very notable; vanity; requires expansion; --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO quite miserably. RFerreira 03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Grandmasterka 05:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic minister. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RetroDuck[edit]

Delete as advertising. Gay Cdn 00:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenaugh[edit]

Delete as it fails both WP:BIO and WP:VANITY. Gay Cdn 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was Redirect. Jaranda wat's sup 03:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rezbit[edit]

Delete as it is a "how to" manual, is about a non-notable fictional entity. Gay Cdn 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mannerings[edit]

Delete as a non-notable player. His name shows up in google mostly preceeded by "subs not used:" Gay Cdn 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems like a fan is going through the squad of Maidstone United F.C. and making pages for the players. It seems like he's not a first team player on a team that's never even been in the Premiership, which doesn't sound particularly notable to me. If it were a proper article I might vote keep, but unsourced, with no explanation and no care put in, I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO Alphachimp talk 05:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 10:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 16 year old who has never played professionally. Oldelpaso 17:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He needs at least one professional game before we can consider him, per WP:BIO. Grandmasterka 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 02:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is on the books of a non-league team, for whom he has never even played a match. I think I'm more notable than he is..... :-) ChrisTheDude 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Hammer[edit]

Delete as it does not meet WP:PORN BIO. Gay Cdn 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ritacco Center[edit]

Delete as an un-notable building. Gay Cdn 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN school building Pete.Hurd 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not just a school building. It's also a venue for commercial events. Google lists a lot of ticket sales companies with a page about events at the Ritacco Center. For example, see http://www.gotickets.com/concert/martina_mcbride/martina_mcbride_with_leann_rimes_at_ritacco_center_on_july_30_2006_730_pm_in_toms_river_nj.php TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google currently lists "about 26900" hits for "Ritacco Center." 68.50.203.109 08:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable in that it is multipurpose, many non-spam/advert links. Article needs revision. Rob 10:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're goging to have a wikipedia article for all multipurpose buildings, because that's really unusually rare?! Pete.Hurd 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rebuttal- Are you're suggesting I'm proposing we allow articles for every multipurpose building? I think my point is quite specific to that building, ie. the 'it' in my sentence. Maybe my position on the original point will be proven to be incorrect. If the vote is to delete the article, then by all means delete it. But I humbly suggest you refrain from putting thoughts or words into my mouth, since you appear to have decided that my single comment is meant to include all potential articles that might be about buildings. Just as an aside, you might double check your spelling before posting an flame. Rob 12:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still totally unenlightened. What is it that makes this building notable, and how ought we to generalize what ever it is that makes this building notable to future cases? Pete.Hurd 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see a school building that sometimes sells tickets. I'm failing to see how this is different, or more notable, from any other multipurpose building that sells tickets. Tychocat 09:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it does bring 'world-renowned entertainment to the community' in the future the article can be recreated but for now, NN. BlueValour 01:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was doesn't belong at AfD, belongs instead at MfD. DarthVader 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by me and deleted by KimvdLinde as CSD U1. DarthVader 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:JB82/FIFA World Cup 2006 Fantasy Squad[edit]

As the 2006 FIFA World Cup nears its end, I believe that this page is no longer relevant. JB82 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close. Should be in MfD rather than AfD. Tevildo 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Operations[edit]

Nonnotable MMORPG; about 850 Ghits most of which were unrelated; article does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 00:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O Connor[edit]

Delete as it fails to meet the nobility established by WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. "Some airplay on smaller regional stations" - close, but no cigar. Tevildo 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC as above. "Robert recently leaked one of his own demos on his official Myspace page." - How do you leak your own demo? --IslaySolomon 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Rob 11:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable musician fails vanity policy and WP:MUSIC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksteddy[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep on this one. Their label seems to be a respectable (if small) one in the Phillipines, and they _are_ apparently on a national tour of that country, which, on a literal reading of the words, brings them within WP:BAND. No idea if the venues they're playing are significant, though. Article needs a bit of cleanup and expansion, of course - evidence of any chart success would be a great help. Tevildo 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article fails to make any claim of notability, no AMG entry. Pete.Hurd 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets several Music criteria; fails on two or more records, but this is Phillipino so I'm using WP is not paper. Foreign bands welcome. Teke 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tevildo Dgies 07:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Nothing at discogs nothing at amazon, but 39,400 ghits DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tevildo. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tevildo, still needs expansion. Yamaguchi先生 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It only takes a little research to find that Rockseddy's song Lagi Mo Na Lang Ba Ako Dededmahin was all over the YES! FM 101.1 top-10 singles chart at the end of December, 2005. [6] [7] [8]. The imprint is local and small, but owned and distributed by Sony-BMG, which isn't small by any stretch of the imagination. -- Mikeblas 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears the consense will be to keep - I am fine with that, but my good faith nomination still stands based on the following points in WP:MUSIC:
  • charted hit on any national music chart - nothing in article or here
  • record certified gold or higher - no
  • national concert tour ... reported in notable and verifiable sources - per above, maybe
  • released two or more albums - only one album released
  • featured in multiple non-trivial published works - nothing sources provided in article - web pages listed don't work
  • at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - nothing provided in article
  • most prominent representative of a notable style - nothing assurted in article
  • won a major music award - nothing in article
  • won or placed in a major music competition - nothing in article
  • performed music for a work of media that is notable - nothing in article
  • placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network - nothing in article - your finds should be added to the article now they have been found
  • subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network - nothing noted in article.--Gay Cdn 15:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that I've done the research for you, you're welcome to move my findings to the article and finish the cleanup work. Note that YES! FM is not a station; it's a network that broadcasts all over the islands, so its countdown is national. What doubts do you still have about the concert tour? Do you really want to see the article deleted because there was a typo in an external link? -- Mikeblas 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PG Music[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:ADS and is a non-notable corporation. Gay Cdn 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Band-in-a-box was a _very_ major piece of software ten, fifteen years ago; not sure if that makes the company notable by itself, though. Tevildo 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Zos 03:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

though. Tevildo 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. (Deleted by User:Mailer diablo, but I think he forgot to close this.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlenichvili[edit]

Delete as it seems to fail WP:BIO. It appears to be part of a family tree I think - It was created in 2005 and no further work has been done to it. Gay Cdn 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceMaker (game)[edit]

Delete as it still is in development. I think the game sounds like a great learning tool. It also comes across a bit like an ad. The content of the article is also heavily copied from the website. Gay Cdn 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A worthy cause, but not (as yet) a notable contribution towards peace - let's hope that changes in the future, though. Tevildo 01:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with massive ad/POV removal The game (and concept) have certainly been noted: here is an NPR story on the game, here is an Associated Press article (from MSNBC, although I also found the article on CNN and Yahoo News), and one of its creators spoke at the 2005 Game Developers Conference. I think that confirms sufficient notability. Yes, it's an ad, and yes, it's slightly crystal ballish, but I think it's still worthy of an article. -- Kicking222 01:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be reasonably notable. Bwithh 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Passes WP:SOFT with Kicking222's references. Might be a good idea to put them in the article... Tevildo 01:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is currently poor, but the game itself seems notable even though it is still in development. --Cswrye 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tag it if need be, but the fact that something does not yet exist does not mean that it is worthy of deletion alone. J Milburn 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Mercedes-Benz C-Class, along with the others mentioned -- nae'blis (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz W203[edit]

All material in this page is covered in the broader article Mercedes-Benz C-Class Paul Fisher 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posit Science[edit]

Delete as a non-notable corp. The doctor who help found the company may be notable, but that does not imply notability on the corp. This article is basically the doctor's bio. Gay Cdn 01:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete NN Corp. article is basically a bio (adcopy?) of Dr. Michael Merzenich, who is notable, but this start-up is not. Pete.Hurd 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This is also a copyvio from his own company bio. Tychocat 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosonik[edit]

Delete as it does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 01:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puppetbox[edit]

Delete as not notable per WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 01:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MarketBlox[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 01:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spam. A microscopic 13 distinct google hits:[9]. --IslaySolomon 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete adcopy for NN corp, spam. Pete.Hurd 03:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rob 11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD A1/G1 - nonsense, no context. Kimchi.sg 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conforming Infra Provider[edit]

Non-notable neologism - 35 Google hits. Cheese Sandwich 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I honestly believe that this article constitues patent nonsense. I defy a native speaker of the english language to explain this sentence's meaning without context: "A Conforming Infra Provider delivers the Universal Enterprise Infrastructure as a turnkey solution."--IslaySolomon 01:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. I agree with IslaySolomon - the individual words on the page may be comprehensible, but, taken as a whole, they're not. Unfortunately, there are far too many (read: more than zero) people in the world who are paid vast sums of money to produce this sort of crap - Business process interoperability, and the rest. Let's make a start by getting rid of this particularly egregious example of linguistic cancer. Tevildo 01:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user:Cheese Sandwich and user:Islay Solomon. Well, I've seen everything now: flatulence with bullet points. --die Baumfabrik 04:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & utter nonsense. Rob 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinium India limited[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and not particularly good spam. --DarkAudit 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn company. -- Grev 02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn advert. Rob 11:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novarra[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 01:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, de-adify, expand. Seems like a notable company (~90K GHits [10], partnership with Computer Associates, etc.) -- Grev 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there appears to be a lot of unrelated Novarras in the Google results. --Cheese Sandwich 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the vast majority of the relevant ghits are just press releases - the ability to get press-releases republished is not a criterion for notability. Also, in its current form, the article does nothing to assert the company's notabilty. Just describes the flagship product. This article meets WP:ADS far, far better than it meets WP:CORP -Seidenstud 05:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and "de-adify" as Grev says. There's reasonable press coverage here. It's kinda borderline.--Chaser T 07:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, also nn company, fails WP:CORP for not having multiple non-trivial articles written by third parties. Per Seidenstud, coverage I checked were catalog listings and press releases of product. Tychocat 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - those who are saying 'seems like a notable company' should note that it is the software being featured here not the company. 19 GHits here indicate little interest in this browser. BlueValour 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediamiser[edit]

Spam. Cheese Sandwich 01:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as spam Alphachimp talk 05:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kudos for keeping to wiki style, but the prose looks like it was grabbed from press releases. Dgies 07:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & advert. Rob 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 03:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedied because of various typo's. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maojor cities of jordan[edit]

This contains no extra information on the cities, and so would be better suited to being a catagory. There are very few entries, it is poorly formatted and the spelling is poor. J Milburn 01:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. Only 4 entries and the task is better performed by a category. --IslaySolomon 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Mailer Diablo 08:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Half[edit]

Non-notable forum with only a few active members and an Alexa rank of 146,731. This forum is part of The Dugout, so maybe some of it could be merged into that article. Schzmo 02:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:WEB Alphachimp talk 05:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alphachimp. Almost certainly is original research, to boot.--Chaser T 07:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection If it needs to be merged then do so. Was only seperated as a means to keep seperate content apart from The Dugout which I believed had no relevance to the original site. Would like to point out that the research is based upon original forum sources and archives and as such I am (for all intents and purposes) the "Expert Editor". I am also in the process of sandboxing additional content for the entire piece including relevant archive materials and publications. No we've not (as a totality) been published by any reliable source, but then we're also not putting forward crackpot science ideas based on "Original Research". Individual contributions and members have however been published. Also somewhat object to the insertion of the Alexa stamp as if that actually counts for anything because as per Wiki's "Importance Criteria" the piece does not need to be qualified by popularity just because it is obscure information of relevance to 'few'. Cheers.--Koncorde 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed said article until such time as I can put up the content in its entireity rather than have it be judged on current content.--Koncorde 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Bad decision on blanking the page. Zos 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Zos 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blanking the page is essentially {{db-author}} for an AfD that could be speedy closed. We can always review this again later should Koncorde choose to repost it.--Chaser T 03:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event 2006[edit]

Procedural AfD. Prod tag was added, then removed by an anon w/o explanation, then restored out of process. No opinon. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Everything in this article is already covered WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results. This also is the second SNME of 2006, no reason for this article to exist. TJ Spyke 03:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats not true, this article is definitly necessary for wrestling fans. I demand that it stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.252.50 (talk • contribs)
  • What can this page offer that the SNME Results page doesn't? This is just a redundant page. Also, please learn to sign your comments. TJ Spyke 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per TJ Spyke. --Burgwerworldz 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless, not to mention improperly titled. MarcK 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per TJ Spyke. --Oakster (Talk) 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as scrambled nonsense with a pinch of vandalism. --Kimchi.sg 13:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EGG/Violet[edit]

Supposedly an upcoming single by Ayumi Hamasaki, this article is full of nonsense in the form of ridiculous headings and statements such as "FIRST PRESS COMES WITH EGG BEATER" and "*~*~*~*~*~**~THIS WILL BE HER FIRST SINGLE RELEASED IN THE U.S. IT WILL BE IN ENGRISH 100%*~*~**~*~~". This may or may not be a hoax, but the article creator has spared no effort to make a joke out of the page since the beginning. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (for 24 hours) If the release date is correct then, upon its release, this will become part of the discography of a notable artist. In the likely event that the AfD discussion lasts until the 10th of July then this just needs rewritten. --IslaySolomon 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that article author has just changed the article to say that the single is not being released until Nov. 11, 2006 (I guess to try to keep this hoax article up for that long). In light of author's history of blanking the AFD notice, blanking the AFD log, and other nonsense, this is even more evidence for deletion. NawlinWiki 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As long as he does not delete the AFD notice or add personal attacks or something offensive, let the user modify the article to whatever date he or she prefers. -- ReyBrujo 03:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree; I'm not saying that the date change should be reverted, just that it's more evidence of a hoax. NawlinWiki 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't find anything on google, and it's not like she doesn't have a web presence or anything. Looks like a hoax to me. Props for the fake cover though, pretty funny. Recury 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax and as the original prod'er. If the single is indeed released on July 10, I will change my vote. However, as it is now, the article seems just a soapbox. If it is a hoax, the closing admin could also delete the cover without having to go through an IFD. -- ReyBrujo 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Image:EGG.JPG is the first cover of the single, apparently. -- ReyBrujo 02:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *Sigh* I know that hoaxes aren't speedyable, but can we please consider this patent nonsense, vandalism, or anything of the like? It looks bad for our encyclopedia if we have this article listed on every Ayumi article page because of the template the user put it into. The article is a pile of nonsense. Metros232 02:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I spent about 10 minutes rewriting and wikifying after deciding whether to mark for delete or rewrite so it needn't be deleted. I have just reverted my changes so that you can see what the article was like before. --Draicone (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete apart from everything else, the article author blanked the entire July 9 AFD log and I had to revert it. NawlinWiki 03:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Still says it's going to chart at #1. --DarkAudit 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete "Article author has just changed the article to say that the single is not being released until Nov. 11." Please disregard my ealier leniency and delete at will. --IslaySolomon 04:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's in the wrong place. I'm moving it to EGG-Violet to remove the subpage. Teke 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have commented in the user's talk page because I found the move before this AFD in my Watchlist. Creating an article like "EGG/Violet" is perfectly legal in the English Wikipedia, as subpages in the main namespace have been disabled since some time. There is no need to move articles with them, as in example, "EGG/Violet" does not create a subpage "Violet" in the article "EGG", but rather an article with name "EGG/Violet". -- ReyBrujo 06:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Mullins[edit]

Subject does not meet WP:BIO: Candidacy for office and position as Justice of the Peace seem to be main elements for claims of notability. Neither seems to generate substantial press or media coverage needed for verification of bio. Main contributor to article, judging by username, seems to be the subject himself. TeaDrinker 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electrical Audio Forum[edit]

NN web forum. Cheese Sandwich 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Everyday life in the Marvel Universe[edit]

fancruft. I created this early in my Wikipedia editing career, and I no longer feel it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Since the last time I brought this up for deletion, I have abstained from editing the page, and maybe two other editors have contributed since then. It is apparent that if I do not add to this list the many other items that belong on it, no one else will. I like this project, but it's not encyclopedic, and it's slightly embarrassing to me as an editor who tries to reduce or eliminate this sort of thing with his edits. Chris Griswold 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD discussion is here. DarthVader 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Jones[edit]

Placekicker (and not even the starter) at Idaho State; nonnotable athlete. NawlinWiki 03:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A kicker needs to make all-american or set conference records to merit inclusion. Just trying to make the team? Not enough. --DarkAudit 03:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---Charles 15:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He was preseason All-American in Junior College and is on full scholarship at Idaho State with the job being his to lose... will make noise this upcoming season and the deletion should be reconsidered!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prnccharmin03 (talk • contribs) 18:46, July 9, 2006
    • Response Hundreds of players have college football scholarships, so that isn't enough for notability. If he indeed "makes noise" this upcoming season, then resubmit the article. Unless/until he does, he's nonnotable. NawlinWiki 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable crystal-balling. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable athlete. Clearly Wikipedia does not need articles on every Division I-AA football player who has yet to play a game... --Kinu t/c 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable college football player Jaranda wat's sup 06:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Rigney[edit]

Delete - non-notable person. A look at his IMDB.com profile reveals his participation in the events he cites have just been minor/supporting production. Also note that this user created no less than 8 versions of this page as seen pulling up his contributions here - clear vanity. Fabricationary 03:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the link you wanted there is this one - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete reposted information AdamBiswanger1 03:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn notable, vanity, reposted content.--John Lake 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as per JLake.Bridesmill 04:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a deleted repost. Yamaguchi先生 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not a CSD G4 candidate - I couldn't find deleted page history at this page or any of the redirects linking to it. If anyone can give me the previous title this was deleted under, it'll go in a puff. Kimchi.sg 13:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is redirect I did [11] from the identical article John Rigney.--John Lake 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of the identical articles from this same authors contribs [12].--John Lake 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the repost criteria only applies if the article has been previously deleted (which is not the same as editing the page and turning it into a redirect); that's not the case here, so I'd rather let the AfD go its course. The page will probably be deleted anyway. --Kimchi.sg 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameshow Marathon show summaries[edit]

Overly long game show fancruft. The specials themselves are barely notable and were low-rated. Just goes into every detail about every show and every move, and WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information Burgwerworldz 03:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow again. Does this guy know his userpage is public, or are rasslin' and eating boogers the cool things in his world? Opabinia regalis 06:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm pretty sure that this has got to be an important subject for many many people and its certainly a verifiable part of televison history and Jimbo Wales says that the mission of Wikipedia is to be the sum of all human knowledge, and we should all support that goal. This article's not cruft, it's just very detailed which took a lot of effort and makes it a good quality article and the article is doing no harm, so what's the point of deleting this? Delete as per nom Bwithh 07:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BryanG(talk) 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion. I am here to explain what I did and also to respond to "die Baumfabrik."
    • I merely cut and paste part of the old Gameshow Marathon page to the page you're seeing now because some of my fellow Wikipedians suggested that this be done. However, it now appears that someone else doesn't want this page to appear at all. If you insist that the page remain on the Wikipedia server, I suggest that whoever originally created the page put the information on his/her own user page. I understand that those pages are protected from blanking, so at the very least it should be OK. Speaking of my user page, think of it as a two-part page:
      • The first part merely reflects what pages would look like if some fictitious people, places, or concepts that I have made up existed and had their own pages on Wikipedia. I even disclose that these are "fakeout" pages on my edit page. Ideally, I would have created the pages as actual entries, printed them out, and then blanked them out to protect the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. But the pages are not "WYSIWYG"; in other words, they will look different on the printed page. Besides, the anti-vandalism teams are out in force and are enforcing the regulations. Also, Wikipedia encourages the use of user pages as sandboxes if needed, and that's what I am doing.
      • The second part is my imagination really running wild. It consists of "corrected" names and the best of wrong answers and puzzles from such shows as Now You See It and You Don't Know Jack. If these "answers" are Wikipedia entries, even better! Maybe my user page should have more facts in them, but as long as I don't go too far with it, I should be OK. (For the record, "rasslin'" is OK to me, but eating boogers aren't. I'm just reporting it.) Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that anyone can see these pages and apologize to anyone who has been offended. Thank you for your attention.--Desmond Hobson 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hack Down and Replace: well, my take on it is, yes, there's waaaaay too much there. but that doesn't mean it all disappears. i feel a very short, to-the-point summary could be made for each game, and then it could go back into the original gameshow marathon article. you don't need to list every celeb's choice made in every game, every single response, and every single witticism uttered, but you could say "so-and-so won such-and-such with a score of blankety-blank, over blah blah blah with yada yada." you could take every episode down to an entire paragraph, then just plug it back in. so... i guess this is a vote for delete, but on the terms that the information is way summarized and put back. Art Begotti 10:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Survey says: gamecruft! This seems more like an indiscriminate collection of information than an expansion which adds value to the article on Gameshow Marathon. --Kinu t/c 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Jologs[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it were, an article with no reliable sources and questionable authenticity wouldn't belong. --Hetar 03:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, & WP:OR.Bridesmill 03:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has only a vague relationship to English, which is probably not the creator's fault, but the fact that it's a dicdef is unavoidable. Opabinia regalis 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Steel 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Zos 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Noble phantasm[edit]

Not only this entry contains an excessive amount of inaccurate information, but what little is salvageable is already mentioned in the series’ main article. Should a terminology page for the series be created, an edited and improved version of this entry would serve a purpose, but as it currently stands, it is completely unnecessary. Ephyon 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stormdrain (band)[edit]

prod was removed without comment,nn-notable band, few Ghits point to MY Space.com, fails WP:MUSIC. John Lake 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator, nn notable band.--John Lake 03:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. -- Mikeblas 04:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC doktorb wordsdeeds 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's funny when deletionists say things like "this fails WP:MUSIC" when you can see in the article itself that the editor has knowingly stuck with the guidelines. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media and Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With just a few google hits, almost all of which seem self-promotional (and the rest centered around their home town), this band appears to be not notable. The only refs I could find to their music being on the sopranos were from one essay on the band, present at a few different sites. Even if they did have a song on that show once, it hardly is the same as being a theme song. --Joelmills 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A theme is only ONE example, it is not listed as the only criteria. "A few google hits?" 82,300 for "stormdrain." 16,200 for "stormdrain" + "music". 9,550 for "stormdrain" + "band." PT (s-s-s-s) 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 40 unique google hits for "stormdrain" + "Scott Reyns", who is described as the leader and creator of the band. --Joelmills 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC all the citations are either unsourced or trivial. Eluchil404 06:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is very frustrating. Clearly, from the Google hits and press kit, this band is a notable presence. However, I'm having a hard time verifying the quotes from the press kit that would constitute notable press coverage, and you're absolutely right about the lack of resources pertaining to their television appearences. Any suggestions on digging up something that might help this article remain? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the claims cannot be verified then it will be hard for this article to remain. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for no evidence of major tours, charted hits. The one print mention the group has is literally a mention. I don't believe Google is the final arbiter of notability, but at the point we're arguing whether 400 hits is better than 40, um, like, oh well. Tychocat 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. The result on this one is going to be obvious, and this is clearly a subject on which an encyclopedic article can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamory[edit]

Creating AfD page requested by anonymous user User:69.14.93.161 on the Article for Creation page. Stated reason for nomination: "Please consider this article for deletion. The text of the article states that polyamory is a neologism, and as such it is not appropriate for wikipedia. Additionally, the article makes several assertions which are either opinion or not backed up with factual citations, categorizing it as original research." In creating this page, I express no opinion on the nomination. Kickaha Ota 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure whether the word "polyamory" still counts as a neologism, but the word is both included in some dictionaries [13] and has been mentioned in mainstream media (e.g., [14]). We are therefore not attempting to define a neologism - this has already been done, and we refer to the verifiable sources. Mdwh 04:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable topic and an acceptable article. The alt.polyamory newsgroup has been around a long time. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a fan of the lifestyle, but this is a massive article that is, if anything, overly sourced, and is a valuable part of the language, describing a fairly important human behavior. Captainktainer * Talk 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussion page on this article goes back 3 years. I think that satisfies the statute of limitations for a 'neologism' to still be neo. --DarkAudit 05:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trying to assume good faith, but it's difficult here. Tag it as OR, but deleting it would be dumb. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I echo Danny's concerns about the good faith of this nomination. (The anon's request, that is - I have no problem with Kickaha Ota's implementing that request.) --Calair 06:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The external links alone indicate reasonable usage.--Chaser T 08:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a neologism. Books 1 - 100 with 947 pages on Polyamory which is a very high number for Google Books. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not appear to be a speedy candidate. Obviously worthwhile in any case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its a neologism in that the word was created in the past 30-some-odd years, however it is well-established, and, as noted above, is in dictionaries and the mainstream media. As Calair and Kickaha Ota said, I also have doubts about the good faith in this nomination. Granted, that's irrelevant, since as the vote stands now, the deletion will not happen. — Xoder|✆ 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just for the record, I didn't express any comment on the appropriateness of the nomination; I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for an AfC reviewer to take advantage of the opportunity to get first licks in on the merits of the nomination while creating the page, so I decided that I won't do it when processing AfCs (though other reviewers may reasonably choose to comment). In any event, the outcome looks certain in this case. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, recently added to the on-line dictionary at Merriam-Webster ( www.m-w.com ), dozens books listed on the subject at Amazon, there's a six-or-seven year old site of reviews of books on the subject at ( www.polychromatic.com ), etc. --Joe Decker 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-established lifestyle with plenty of documentation, books have been written about it, and the term was just added to Merriam-Webster. I also have doubts about the good faith of this nomination. --Bikergeek 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The word may be a neologism, but all words are neologisms at first, and it's not particularly new. More importantly, even if the word is new, the idea it represents is not. Izzycat 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Artw 17:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above, though I reserve judgement on the good faith or lack thereof of the nominator. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Polyamory has been pushed into the public eye a great deal recently but the concept has been around for a very long time. I withhold judgement on the good faith issue for the time being - as the article doesn't seem likely to be deleted at this time, anyway. --Growly 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. --Silverroses 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading through the article, there is a great deal of information that needs to be cited, and this article would likely be a great candidate for cleanup in that regard, but this article does not merit deletion per the deletion policy because the issues that it does have can be fixed by way of editing. Not only are there several forums and web sites that mention the term, but it is defined by Merriam-Webster and McGraw-Hill's “Understanding Human Sexuality”, 9th Ed., and information on the subject is available from a number of other sources, as well. The concept is “new” in that it is not what one would consider to be a core word of the English language, but there are several such words in use and defined, consider bling-bling, google (as a transitive verb), and others. Most assuredly a keep article. —fd0man 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, "new" (but used by textbooks, researchers, etc.) word for an idea that is most definitely not new. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It is obvious this nomination for deletion will fail; we should close it early. I would do so myself but my opinion is too strong on the merits of the existence of this article. moink 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jezter[edit]

No claim to notability. Releases are mixtapes. No listed at all music. 130 hits on google, and only a few of those are actually relevant. Article created by a user with the same name as its subject, so there's some vanity problems, too. Mikeblas 04:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN as above. Google search for "4-Word Media" produces only 8 unique hits [15]. One of them is an interview with the Jezter himself[16], where he talks about making music on his PC. There's no evidence either there or on the official site [17] of 4-Word involving anyone else, so it's dificult to see in what sense he is a "CEO". Fails WP:MUSIC. --IslaySolomon 04:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that all the releases are by 4-Word Media, which the article mentions is the guy's own company. So bsaically it's just some guy's vanity page. Also, all substantive changes in changelog were by User:The_Jezter   Dgies 07:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Boggs[edit]

Vanity page; userfy and prod tags deleted by new editors JChap 04:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renegade artistry[edit]

Marketing material, really. Name of a record company (with no notable artists or releases, fails WP:CORP) wrapped in a neologisim. Mikeblas 04:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 514 Ghits. Don't see any evidence of major media attention. No encyclopedically major releases, per their own website. Nn per WP:CORP. Luna Santin 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable only 10 ghits for Renegade Artistry Records and that includes wikipedia, myspace and their own web site. --Xrblsnggt 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the concept of Renegade artistry seems to be what is represented, the bulk of the material on the page including the picture really appears to be about the NN band/record label --Xrblsnggt 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Inside Scoop[edit]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Davies[edit]

Possible vanity page, creatred by anonymous editor only inserting info about subject. Google search on "Dan Davies" inconclusive, based on common name. "Killer Carrots from Hell" brings up only 26 Ghits, 9 unique - "Beyond The Untold Story" returns only three hits. Delete as non-notable bio. MikeWazowski 05:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; nomination withdrawn. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable_attacks_by_the_LTTE[edit]

Per Wikipedia policy, one cannot create a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article - Ref: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. The list has been added to the main article about the LTTE as it was BEFORE. Supermod 06:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep POV forks are prohibited, but this seems to be an attempt to manage the article size, which is encouraged. There's no indication this was done to evade NPOV. I'd suggest the nominator withdraw, as this probably isn't going to go anywhere.
Also, you replaced the text of the article with the above deletion rationale. It's no big deal and I reverted it so that we could see what we are talking about. I'm assuming it was an accident or something, but please be careful with future AfDs.--Chaser T 08:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the creator of this article. The purpose was twofold; 1) to reduce the size of the main LTTE article; and 2) to make it more NPOV, not less. Originally, more than a third of the LTTE article consisted of this list. A long, grim list of attacks, even when all true, contributes to an anti-LTTE bias. Moving it a to separate article preserves the information, makes for easier reading, and both articles are more NPOV. Tyronen 04:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, I agree this can be in a separate group. I will remove the deletion tag.

I do not agree with the follwoing comment by Tyronen: 

 "A long, grim list of attacks, even when all true, contributes to an anti-LTTE bias."

Yes, reporting truth contributes to an anti-LTTE bias. So what is the wrong with it? This is a place to educate the public of truthful information. If LTTE did not use terrorist tacticts, then the list would not be here in the first place. Supermod 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bartholomew[edit]

I am nominating this for deletion because it is a failure of WP:MUSIC. He has only one CD which was written, performed, produced, engineered, mixed and mastered by himself. His only other claim to faim was that he won a local radio contest. --Hetar 06:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is not a failure of WP:MUSIC. The page has been edited. I am strongly against deletion of this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halle Leah (talk • contribs) .
  • Could you provide a source to verify the CBC replaying. That would satisfy the second to last bullet of WP:MUSIC's first section.--Chaser T 08:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please forgive my apparent lack of how to submit an article and how to respond, I'm learning. Maybe you could offer some help, that would be refreshing. I have no idea if this is where I am supposed to respond to your immediate response to delete my article. I didn't even have it finished before you submitted it for deletion! Do you think that you could extend some grace? Thanks. This comment was also added by user Halle Leah.
  • Keep. For pete's sake, give the guy enough time to finish the article! It's been around for less than a day- you need to give contributors on an actively edited article enough time to finish it! Otherwise, you risk biting the newcomers, as appears has been done. (By the way, to sign your posts use this: ~~~~. Captainktainer * Talk 08:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely felt the bite. Goodness, I had only been a member of this community for an hour and a half when my first article was nominated for deletion. I completely agree with you, it's important to give newcomers a chance to learn the ropes and get their first article finished. Thanks for the vote of confidence Captainktainer, I really appreciate it. I wanted to send you a message or post this on your page, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. :) Halle Leah 09:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there's not much besides the radio play. Is this what's meant by rotation?--Chaser T 08:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning above.--Halle Leah 09:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on his press (see his website) and radioplay, even though he hasn't released an album and has no label. Also, it's pretty impressive to have the top four spots on a most requested list for an internet radio station. This is one of those cases where the internet catches on faster to an up and coming artist than mainstream press. Nice job on a first article, by the way. --Joelmills 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Joel, I appreciate it. Although last night I questioned if I would ever attempt another one. Once this is all settled, I think I'll give it another try. Tip #1 for newcomers, use the "Show Preview" button! Halle Leah 03:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Joelmills Wiki is not a crystal ball. It is not the place of Wiki to "catch up before the mainstream press". This singer can use MySpace if he wants to promote his CDs - not Wiki. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on doktorb Please see my observation below. Halle Leah 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of national tours or charted hits per WP:MUSIC, or non-trivial third-party coverage per WP:BIO. Tychocat 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comments and observation below. Thanks! Halle Leah 19:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been placed in rotation nationally on CBC [18] Radio. Halle Leah 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been the subject of a LIVE 90 minute broadcast on CBC's National Radio One show GO. [19] Halle Leah 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been the featured artist of the week on CBC's National Radio One show FREESTYLE. [20] [21] Interview here. [22] Halle Leah 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation I have had a couple of days to ponder my first experience being a registered user of Wikipedia. From what I understand, Wikipedia is an international Web-based free-content encyclopedia. I find it interesting to note that Wikipedia does not seem to recognize Internet radio play. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but it seems hypocritical that an online encyclopedia does not recognize online radio. I hope this observation causes other users to ponder this oddity. In its conception, I believe Wikipedia was a forerunner. With the advancement of technology, Internet and satellite radio stations broadcast music worldwide. We should not allow old ideas, and the old way of doing things, to keep us from moving forward. Halle Leah 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Halle - it is not about Wiki catching up with technology. It is about the policies of the site - WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO in this case. Joshua may be a very good singer but notable by these standards he may be "only just" but I cannot support this articles inclusion and remain certain that it should be deleted. I am not an admin, I am not an editor with much sway, but I do now that hundreds of singers and bands are put on here like its a "grown up Myspace" and just as many hundreds are shown the door pretty quickly. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi doktorb - I was not inferring that it was about Wikipedia catching up with technology, but that perhaps policy changes are required from time to time. I also thought it important to note the hypocrisy of an online encyclopedia excluding the validity of online radio. Halle Leah 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Halle, how do all of your comments and observations answer WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO? These are the issues we're dealing with. You may want to address rewriting the article to meet these repeatedly-made points. You otherwise appear to be implying that because it's about "online radio", that WP guidelines do not apply. Tychocat 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tychocat - I am not at all implying that WP guidelines do not apply. In answer to WP:MUSIC I have included external links at the bottom of my article to support the radio play, interviews and television appearances. I was trying to make it short and concise, do you think it would be more constructive to put the links within the article? As far as Internet radio goes, based on a couple of comments above, my assumption is that Internet radio play is not considered viable within the Wikipedia community. If this is in fact true, I find it to be quite a paradox. If I have been wrong in my assumption, then I absolutely apologize and would ask everyone concerned to please see the Top 10 requests at Netradio. Thanks for your help! Halle Leah 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to gang signal -- nae'blis (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gang symbol[edit]

Article fails to assert subect's notability. Also, seems to possibly fall under WP:NFT Seidenstud 06:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. However, someone could probably make a good article about the use/signifigance of gang symbols in general... Dgies 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. How about replacing with a redirect then. 'Gang Symbol' is a more familiar term to me than 'Gang signal'. Dgies
Fine with me.--Chaser T 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Chaser T 08:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Gang signal, per the above. Tevildo 11:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dgies. Oldelpaso 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Tevildo. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dgies. Srose (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per no claim to notability (and title having nothing to do with subject), redirect per above. Dgies makes an excellent point. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're probably going to say "this isn't one of those very special things for which that CSD criteria applies"... yawn.) Morgan Wick 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to gang signal like suggested. RFerreira 03:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Delete all. Jaranda wat's sup 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Cyber Club[edit]

Deletion nomination cybergirlfest These pages are rampant playboycybergirlfancruft (See WP:CRUFT) on which a lot of effort has been spent, and which includes such fascinating statistical records such as for shortest cybergirl, lightest cybergirl etc. So... detailed fancruft, but still fancruft. The playboy cyber club website is a subsite of the same domain as playboy.com, on which we already have an article - Playboy Online. I'm not sure how WP:WEB applies to porn sites, but this is moot in this case as the cybergirl website is just part of playboy.com.

Some description of the cybergirl site could be merged into Playboy Online - bizarrely, that article (several months older than the cybergirl articles) remains a one line stub whereas this Playboy CyberClub website article is rich in detail and has spawned multiple daughter articles including possibly specially created articles on specific cybergirl porn models (which I don't have the patience to go through at the moment, but possibly these are questionable too) as well as special cybergirl page templates. (My personal opinion is that the Playboy Online article should be merged into the main Playboy magazine article, but lets take this one step at time)

Anyway, The cybergirl/coed of the week/month/year articles are nonnotable - most of the models are first-timers (according to Cyber Girl of the Week, not my personal experience), and anyway, these are all just sub-parts of features of the cybergirl subsite of the main playboy website.

Personal note: I vaguely remember nominating or being part of an afd for a similar article on playboy cybergirls very early in my wikipedia experience - the article creator was someone different though (he also liked to list all the girls individually for their own articles), and there weren't any daughter articles. the afd was successful and the article deleted but the various individual cybergirl model articles were overlooked by the closing admin (I remember asking about that but neither he or I could be bothered to go through the stack...perhaps we can find some doughty volunteers for this daunting task of playboy model research this time round). Oh well, I'll try to look into my hazy wikipast to try and find that long lost afd)

  • Pages nominated:
  • Templates nominated (I couldn't figure out how to paste the afd notice to link these with this discussion)
  • Categories nominated (yeah, I know. the template and categories should technically go on the template and category deletion pages. But it made more sense to bundle this stuff here)

Bwithh 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of it and all the girls that didn't make the print edition. Cybergirl = The Double-A of Playboy. Massive Guystypingwiththeirlefthandcruft. ~ trialsanderrors 07:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find a few passing references in Lexis, but not an article about the site per se. It may get adult film awards or something, though, so we'll see if the pages' creator can defend them. It might also be appropriate to keep some of this stuff after the AfD closes to give the creator time to merge a tiny bit of the content into some other article. Just a suggestion.--Chaser T 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of it per nom. Wow. I thought Internet memes were given undue notability by people who had personal experience with them, but I'm thinking this proves a certain theory about the organ with which some males think. Gah. GassyGuy 08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging categories and listing at CfD with a reference to this AfD. Luna Santin 12:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all nominated articles My word, this is the best of the Internet or what? Porncruft of the highest degree and the lowest possible worth on Wiki. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as Porncruft. Darn it, Doktorbuk, you stole my protologism! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as porncruft. I <3 protologisms, too! -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, definitely cruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good God - Delete all per above. Zos 04:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The templates are now at TfD here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ais523 (talk • contribs)
    • Whoops, sorry for forgetting to sign that! --ais523 08:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Suitable for a Playboy wiki. GizzaChat © 11:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. JDoorjam Talk 07:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight against the freeway system[edit]

Finishing abandoned nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete given the sheer dearth of content. Not sure why this was both speedied and AfD'ed. ~ trialsanderrors 07:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy no content, vanity, nonsense, etc. etc. etc. Aplomado talk 07:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that a merge and a move was required, not AfD. Kevin 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Company (Swarthmore College)[edit]

completing incorrect Afd nomination. Not expressing an opinion at the moment --Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this one, as it disambiguates between two other singing groups of the same name. The one that needs to be deleted is Mixed Company, which somebody wrote for some odd reason despite the existence of the other three. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Birge (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 June 2006.

I have completed the move and redirects per 68.50.203.109 Kevin 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus after ignoring new users. Jaranda wat's sup 04:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment Therapy[edit]

I tagged this recently-created article as original research since it appeared to be an essay in which the author draws conclusions; i.e., he was using Wikipedia to publish a paper. It appears that I have walked into a war between two (or more) people interested in this particular medical field. See Talk:Attachment_Therapy, User_talk:DPeterson, Talk:John Bowlby and Talk:Attachment_disorder. One side believes the article should be deleted and redirected to Attachment disorder, and the other side feels that it merits its own article. Hopefully the Wikipedia community can provide some consensus here and settle this. Aplomado talk 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion Perhaps we should make an appeal on WikiProject Medicine for Wikipedians who are both experienced editors and medical experts Bwithh 07:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an appeal on the wikiproject talk page Bwithh 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May demonstrate original research but this is a real form of therapy. Related, but weighty enough to be a seperate article. Needs clean up, not deletion. Dgies 07:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There material on this subject is fully described in the pages Attachment therapy Attachment disorder, and related pages. Furthermore, the person who initiated the page, mercer, is a leader of a fringe group, ACT, or actively involved in it, and has had a book printed regarding this "issue" from which financial interest is derived. Finally, the article is clearly biased and represents an attempt to publish an essay. DPeterson 14:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article provides information that is not included under any other topic. The other discussions of various attachment issues do not refer to physical restraint or other intrusive practices, or to the role of adjuvant treatments, or to the history of these interventions, all of which are considered in the article under discussion. Popular material on Attachment Therapy presents a picture that may lead the public to search for information in Wikipedia, and it would be a service to provide this information in a concise but complete form rather than adding material to other topics and making the reader search for it. I am the author of the draft under consideration, and I can present as my credentials a doctorate in psychology, many years' work in developmental psychology and infant mental health, and publication of a number of the articles cited in the draft, which is not "original".As for the more substantive issue here, whether Attachment Therapy is an independent topic, I note that the American Professional Society on Abuse of Children (APSAC)appointed a task force to consider "Attachment therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems" (report published in the journal Child Maltreatment, 2006, Vol. 11, pp. 76-89). The report referred to "a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects... the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these practices, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents" (p. 77). I put it to this group that if APSAC considers this "subset" to be worthy of investigation by a task force, the "subset" is a topic separate from other considerations of attachment or of Reactive Attachment Disorder. It is to this subset that I applied the term Attachment Therapy, a label frequently used by "subset" practitioners and one likely to be known to members of the public who might be searching for information. I would like to continue with the page I drafted and to edit it to reflect the comments of the APSAC task force as quoted above.Jean Mercer 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Delete This article reads more as propaganda. I'd recommend adding material on physical restraint or other intrusive practices to the relevant pages. Redirection to those pages, as occurs if you try Attachment therapy would work fine. Use of Wikipedia to publish is not really appropriate. SamDavidson 17:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Dr. Mercer and the APSAC Task Force agree in both their examination and estimation of Attachment Therapy. A synopsis of Attachment Therapy for Wikipedia by Dr. Mercer should be welcome. HealthConsumerAdvocate 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC) 'Should be deleted' as a one time user with no history of edits. 'The previous "keep" was deleted after it was noted that might be a surrogate. It was deleted by someone in the Denver Colorado area. It was suggested that only those who sign in should post. This and other "keep" posts look quite suspicious now. DPeterson 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'I can see no purpose in developing this article since it's contents either duplicate material found elsewhere or that should be put elsewhere. Furthermore, I don't think an article should be a forum for a group, such as ACT, to present their views and opinions and exclude others. MarkWood 17:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'I agree with the points raised by the others who wish to see the page deleted.JonesRD 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question' Since Mercer and Sarner share a financial interest (together they published at least one book) and are also leaders of the group ACT, is it fair to consider their comments and ideas and "votes" as separate? I'd like to know what the Administrators think...or what other disinterested parties have to say. Thank you. JonesRD 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe they should be allowed a vote. Sandy 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a vote so it's not really an issue. Aplomado talk 01:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if they have a financial interest in the topic and also leaders of a "fringe group" (meaning not accepted or used by mainstream professional groups such as APA, NASW, or APSAC, then would that effect the weight applied to their arguments and their credibility? DPeterson 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Attachment therapy itself may be bogus, and the entire article may be a mess, but the therapy warranted a study in a medical journal, so the solution is not to delete the article, rather to clean it up and reference it. That will at least serve the purpose of warning others who seek info that it has been studied, and may be bogus. The article may be a problem, and the therapy may be a problem, but it has been medically studied, and Wiki should report that accurately, and with references. If there are problems with the group pushing this therapy, that should also be dealt with in the article via information from reliable sources. PMID 16382093 Sandy 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

|*'Comment' It is important that contributors sign in...we don't really know who is the above contributor and if the "keep" suggestion is new or just a repeat and continuation of a previous users comments...which I suspect may be the case. It is also becoming confusing as sandy and mercer put up comments that they then later delete, move, and change...reading through the history one sees this and I am concerned that relevant material of others may have also been deleted?

It does not matter the amount of money involved, but the fact of a financial interest among mercer, sarner, and sarner's wife, rosa is the salient issue. In addition, mercer and sarner are leaders of the group ACT, which is another set of ties and financial interests as the ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy) website shows (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/).

The APSAC report does not describe Attachment Therapy, it uses the term attachment therapy (no caps). They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, what seems to be focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. In which case, the material would belong on the existing pages, attachment therapy or Attachment therapy, which redirect the reader to Attachment disorder. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

To include the full range of issues on this proposed page would then have to duplicate material on the previously cited Wikipedia articles or duplicate the APSAC report. A better solution would be to include a reference and brief description of the controversy on the previously mentioned page with a link to the APSAC report for details. 'DPeterson 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

'delete' I've read the comments here and on the bowlby talk page and the various associated articles mentioned. There is no reason to keep this article. Related material in on other pages. The narrowness of the dispute means that, as described above, it should be in context and, as such, would be better as a section in the article on attachment disorder. If there is concern about individuals looking up attachment therapy, there is already a redirect from that term and there could be a redirect from Attachment Therapy too. This would better serve readers of Wikipedia. JohnsonRon 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'DELETE'The material and reasons stated make the point clearly and I agree that the article is unncessary. In particular, I think DPeterson's points are well stated and I must agree. RalphLender 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'DELETE...COMMENT'While this may not be a primary reason for deletion, inclusion of this page would become a needless forum for such fringe groups as ACT and its leaders to state a point of view and then invite rebuttal and then reverts by the "opponents" in the ACT camp, etc. etc. Alternativly to have two sections in which each side could put their material would then create an "article" that is neither an article nor informative in the sense of presenting information in as neutral a manner as possible. JonesRD 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'DELETE' I agree with all the previous points raised for deletion. These points are very cogent. I find the argument of DPeterson very convincing: The APSAC report does not describe Attachment Therapy, it uses the term attachment therapy without capital letters. There is already a redirect for this term. They state, “The terms attachment disorder, attachment problems, and attachment therapy, although increasingly used, have no clear, specific, or consensus definitions. Pg 77 Furthermore, the focus of this proposed page only addresses a very narrow area, “Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists.” Pg 76 Attachment therapy is better discussed in context, especially if the focus is on “a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners” pg 77. In which case, the material would belong on the existing pages, attachment therapy or Attachment therapy, which redirect the reader to Attachment disorder. The controversy is a narrow one and should be placed in context so that readers understand the full range of issues. “ The attachment therapy controversy has centered most broadly on the use of what is known as “holding therapy” (Welch, 1988) and coercive, restraining, or aversive procedures such as deep tissue massage, aversive tickling, punishments related to food and water intake, enforced eye contact, requiring children to submit totally to adult control over all their needs, barring children’s access to normal social relationships outside the primary parent or caretaker, encouraging children to regress to infant status, reparenting, attachment parenting, or techniques designed to provoke cathartic emotional discharge” pg 83.

To include the full range of issues on this proposed page would then have to duplicate material on the previously cited Wikipedia articles or duplicate the APSAC report. A 'better solution' is to include a reference and brief description of the controversy on the previously mentioned page with a link to the APSAC report for details.

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

RxP Gas Kicker[edit]

Replaces prod which was removed with no reason stated. Advertorial with no assertion of notability. Multiple spam links to the same website. WP:NOT a linkfarm Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plain old spam. Dgies 07:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. Tevildo 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete, there are plenty of other commerically named products on wiki that explain facts. there is no intent for spam. those links are simply for documentation. would it be better to link to 1 single page compiling multiple references? please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.9.33 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Emoticon per research provided. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotext[edit]

Delete. Neologism, "The term was created by.." -- No citeation, short and nothing useful in the article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge to Emoticon and make this a redirect, or edit to enter correct definition, but Neologism in either case. Emotext term was probably first menitioned thus: "CMC users have developed an electronic "paralanguage" (Carey, 1980, cited in Walther, 1992), to express affective and socioemotional information. These informal codes, which we call "emotext," may include intentional misspelling, lexical surrogates for vocal segregates, grammatical markers, strategic capitalization, and visual arrangements of text characters into "emoticons." Intentional misspelling often includes the repetition of a vowel or consonant to represent the accentuation of a word or phrase for affect, as in the phrase, "sssoooooo good!" Lexical surrogates function as parenthetical metalinguistic cues, as "hmmm" might represent a paraverbal expression of thoughtfulness or "yuk yuk" ; might express self-deprecating laughter. Grammatical markers include gratuitous capitalization as well as repeated exclamation points and question marks to add affective emphasis. Emoticons refer to short combinations of textual characters which, if turned clockwise, resemble various facial expressions. in Paper submitted for presentation to the 45th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 1995, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA so this is not it. This article is WP:NFT Fiddle Faddle 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some research on this topic. It is more properly part of Emoticon, and should be merged and redirected there. I am thus changing my opinion, above, Fiddle Faddle 06:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see Emoticon#Emotext, where the "merge" has been performed with the version of this article's text that is not original research. Since emotext now has a valid place to redirect to, can we just change Emotext to a redirect and close this nomination as "redirected"? Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current article per above, although wouldn't the date 1995 help to make the correct definitionnot a neologism? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, neologism entries that credit the "creator" are seldom, if ever, worthwhile. Danny Lilithborne 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Quest International[edit]

Prod removed with a comment on the talk page that did not assert any notability. Advertorial. WP:NOT a linkfarm. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plain old spam. Dgies 07:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, otherwise, delete everything in List of Network Marketing Companies— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.116.110 (talk • contribs)
    • Please note that other articles on wikipedia do not set precedents when considering an article for deletion. Each article is treated on its own merits. Please also sign your comments with ~~~~ Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spam far too common on WP. Tychocat 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain "set precedents when considering an article for deletion" in exact relation to this article so we can make it better. There is no intent for spam. Simply to post as other companies are listed. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.9.33 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually I will explain "do not set precedents". The existence of another article does not mean that this article shoudl exist. The other article's existence does not set a precedent, nor does it mean that this article should exist. Each article stands alone and is here by its own merits. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G3 - vandalism. Kimchi.sg 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about spyro[edit]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Content is a duplicate of Spyro the Dragon (series). Attempts to link to this article (see Spyro page history) have been rvv'ed, user responsible has already received warnings about this behavior. --Stratadrake 07:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete because it is a duplicate, Lock against recreation. Fiddle Faddle 09:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSAMC[edit]

Strong delete. Should be speedied, but User:Ansell keeps removing the tag. This is an internet forum with 66 registered members making unsourced claims of being the "first spam forum" online. Fabricationary 08:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was removing the tag because the page claims to be "one of the first spam forums ever created" and it claims to be a "very important spam forums because it gathered all of the spam forum icons and leaders (or main-members) from other spam forums". These are notability statements, and as such cannot be judged by the speedy criteria. They deserve a discussion at least. Ansell 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably wiser to see if the forum is notable before just believing what it says? Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy tags are only for sites which do not need any sort of external referencing to figure out whether to delete or not. I suggested that the original tagger put a Prod on instead but they chose this method instead. It was a case of misunderstanding the speedy criteria. Also, I put my statement down as a comment, not as anything else. Ansell 09:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsubstantiated statements, tons of redundant redlinks, and poorly written. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete WP:NFT & total unmitigated nonsene. Frankly this nonsense should be speedied and blocked against recreation after the deleted tags farago. Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you propose we make up a sufficiently objective criteria for what is Bollocks. And how does your NFT (aka, Not for Things made up in school one day) reference work here? Ansell 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's very unlikely that we'll ever find any secondary sources to write an article about a small site like this. I don't agree that it should have been speedied though, I think the boundaries of the speedy deletion criteria shouldn't be stretched or moved like this - that's why we have AfD and PROD. --JoanneB 10:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability and no excuse or reason for advertising such a small forum on Wiki. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article asserts notability and is worth a discussion, but overall it's not notable by objective standards. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - author's request. Kimchi.sg 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gripweed. : a neat biography[edit]

Seems like vanity, and is rather short of WP:MUSIC. Minimal ghits. Only question is: they claim they've performed with a few notable acts. Does that evne matter? Seidenstud 08:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable. Couldn't this have been nommed for speedy? TheRingess 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they don't meet WP:MUSIC. -- Mikeblas 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think is vanity, administrators can do their work, they can delete my contribute anyway,but I think that the band I wrote about could deserve to be here. I don't know why you are so crabby. I think that if you wanted to suggest my article for deletion you should have been much more polite.the last user gave me a much more appreciable reason for deleting my article Kyotosong 09:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was REDIRECT all except Maggot (rapper). User:Spartak vladikavkaz can get this info (minimal for all except Mystical) from the page histories if he needs it; it's time to close the AfD. The singles were not really addressed, except for one Keep comment, so they are kept. Herostratus 07:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2Hats[edit]

User:Spartak vladikavkaz has has forked off individual stubs for each of members in the Welsh rap group Goldie Lookin Chain. On their own they do not pass the WP:MUSIC notability test.

I am nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

In my opinion, two articles for the group's singles should also be merged and deleted for notability reasons:

--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spartak vladikavkaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added for ref purposes.--Andeh 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Maggot as indivduals they fail WP:MUSIC but Maggot has some notability with other media work. The other members are not notable enough. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Goldie Lookin Chain like the Mike Balls article used to (hence my message on its talk page). --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mr. Lefty. This seems like an amicable compromise. --NMChico24 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the members per Mr. Lefty. If Maggot merits standalone content, then keep that one. Keep the two singles, especially "Guns..." as it was a big hit. GassyGuy 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maggot actually has done stuff outsiude the band that he's known for. mystikals entry wasn't deemed deleteable unitl a registered member altered it, why? For the rest of the band give me a week to copy the informaiton into the main entry about the band itself so the info isn't completely lost as the fans would be like to able to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartak vladikavkaz (talk • contribs)

I agreed with the above.

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

The result of the nomination was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Democratic Party Links[edit]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Emulation[edit]

Non-notable neologism; furthermore, article seems to be mostly quotations --Gnewf 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article appears to be placed solely to add notability to the organisation using wikipedia. Wrong way round, that! Fiddle Faddle 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Although the phrase has been used in the cited source (the "Catholic News" article), that's not quite enough to bring it within WP:NEO, and the article as it stands isn't about the phrase at all, just about the activities of P&CR.org. Tevildo 11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (camera man)[edit]

Not really notible - not a lot can be said about him. I put it up for PROD but someone deleted it. -- 9cds(talk) 09:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is almost speediable under DB:Empty. Fiddle Faddle 09:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless and un-notable. What little content there is could easily be merged into the Quizmania article. M0RHI 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Possibly speedy per A7. -- Steel 22:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indline Chat[edit]

Appears to be non-notable software that fails WP:SOFTWARE, reads like advertising (article creator has only made edits to other instant messenger topics adding references to this). The "millions of active users" statistic is not backed up with references, and the "top 50 at download.com" claim seems to be for an entirely different program called Camfrog, whereas Indline's own website ranks below 2,000,000 on Alexa, and a search for "Indline chat" returns only 5 unique GHits. ~ Matticus78 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I've just clocked that most of the text from this article is copy-pasted from the article on Camfrog (which is probably why there's that odd reference to Camfrog in there). ~ Matticus78 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If this gains in popularity, then I could see the usefulness of this article, but not as it stands now.→LzyGenius 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurish Language[edit]

I prod tagged this with the comment:

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Secondly, this is by its own admission original research.

{{prod2a}} tag added by Cfred with the comment

Non-notable constructed language, no claim of any population of speakers..

Prod tag removed by author after (according to the edit summary) "improvements". I'm nominating this for deletion for the reasons I and Cfred stated, as the "improvements" don't address either point Tonywalton  | Talk 10:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom, possibly qualifies for speedy A7. ~ Matticus78 10:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. And - * sighs * - much as though I'd like to see this be speedied, A7 only applies to people or groups of people. Would that it were otherwise... Tevildo 10:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. As noted above, the article does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, but it's so squarely in vanity/original research that there's no reason to keep it. —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of the more progressive admins have been G3'ing this sort of thing; it would be _better_ if A7 were to be expanded, but I'm sure we can trust the system to reach the right result one way or another. ;) Tevildo 12:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made-up stuff. NawlinWiki 13:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made-up language. Fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the cruft is strong with this one. Danny Lilithborne 01:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a repost/A7.--wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joenabie_Gamao[edit]

Clearly a vanity page. →LzyGenius 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should just speedy delete under CSD A7, or move to user page and delete consequent redirect. ~ Matticus78 10:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears to meet criteria for speedy so tagged for Speedy deletion.--Andeh 10:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. It's already there at User:Joenabie, as the "article" states. I'm not sure even that meets the guideline at WP:UP:
Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working.
Tonywalton  | Talk 10:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basic matrix (mathematics)[edit]

This article is innacurate and does not provide signifigantly better information than Matrix (mathematics) 48v 10:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is wrong of course but could be fixed and it is a rather neat simple way of introducing matrices. I'm inclined to say fix it and keep it. If others agree I'll fix it myself, but it is too late now. --Bduke 11:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is fixable, but I'm guestioning the value of repairing it because i think the example is a poor oversimplification of the simple uses of a matrix. I dont think it would be unresonable to use the basic concept, rewritten into a section of the arcticle Matrix (mathematics) if you feel that the information is really helpfull. Froiom the perspective of a mathematician this is a fairly useless example, but perhaps it would be helpful to those with less background on the subject. 48v 19:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplication of Matrix (mathematics).It is fundamentally wrong in many places and not worth merging. Better to delete this and tag the better article for a more generalist presentation. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—incorrect, and duplicates information already in Matrix (mathematics). Spacepotato 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suspicious poorly written article, ever since I ran into it a while ago. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -lethe talk + 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might posibly be worth transwiking to wikibooks. --Salix alba (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peripitus, Spacepotato, et al. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article is wrong factually, typographically, and pedagogically. For example, to have a valid matrix product AB, the number of columns of A must equal the number of rows of B, yet this basic rule is violated repeatedly here. --KSmrqT 01:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all of the above. If rewritten from scratch, it just might make it to wikibooks. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor article with too many mistakes - and even if rewritten, I don't think it warrants an article on its own. Madmath789 07:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. factually wrong. Even with a complete rewrite, it would not be encyclopedic content. There is no such thing as a "basic matrix" when compared to a matrix. Ubermichael 22:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ch'uan Shu[edit]

Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Should be prodded, but it's been nominated (though nom was withdrawn) for VfD before, so I felt it best to follow the policy to the letter. Captainktainer * Talk 11:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep if referenced. Appears to be a legitimate, if obscure, branch of the martial arts. I'm sure it can be verified and appropriate cites provided; however, this needs to happen if the article is to stay. Tevildo 11:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'd withdraw in a heartbeat if it were referenced fully. I hate deleting articles; I try to rescue articles from AfD whenever I possibly can. However, I haven't found any reliable sources, and this article's been lying fallow for months. Captainktainer * Talk 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per the above, subject to revision. Don't want this one to go out "No Consensus" and fall below the radar. Tevildo 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish I could speak a Chinese language so I could help out here... anyway, at least one source ([23]) suggests that this is a generic name for all Chinese martial arts (it translates roughly as 'Fist arts' according to a few sources). Another source that may be relevant: [24]. Ziggurat 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already redirected -- nae'blis (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Famous Fakir of Lahore[edit]

Seems like original research to me. Chrisd87 11:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move/Rename to Sadhu Haridas, and Rewrite. Looks very much like a copyvio to me - based on the dates, the source text seems to date from the 1920's (or later), and therefore is presumably still in copyright. However, the subject seems to be notable and mentioned in a verifiable source. Tevildo 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Copied from http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=4465, not sure if it is Public Domain or something. The site says "Here's the report on the disinterment by Claude Wade, then British Resident in Ranjit Singh's court", which means this is quite old. utcursch | talk 12:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Rewrite per Tevildo. Eluchil404 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator, support Move and Rewrite per above comments. Chrisd87 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Moved and rewritten. :) Tevildo 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normansfield[edit]

article about a non-notable road Travelbird 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Far less notable than the Blackpool streets that were rapidly removed the other week. Tevildo 12:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Emc² (CONTACT ME) 12:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Monette[edit]

This was originally nonsense, but has now been changed to talk about a person who does not seem to exist. Judging from the User's name, this is a nonsense vanity. I have tagged it for speedy delete 3 times, each time it was removed without explanation, and the Admins have not cleared it that way. Strong Delete. J Milburn 11:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. He does not appear on the cast list of Watatatow on [IMDb], so one of the two facts asserted about him in the article is demonstrably incorrect. Tevildo 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense/hoax. NawlinWiki 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. CSD G7 - author request. Kimchi.sg 07:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Legislature Marriage Positions[edit]

This is a list of how every New York State Legislator stands on the topic of gay marriage. I don't think this is encyclopedic as it is just their opinions on one issue and is just an indiscriminate collection of information Metros232 11:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. FTA: "only a minority of [New York State Legislature] members have stated their positions [on same-sex marriage]. This is a wiki-effort to see where they stand." In other words, even the article's creator does not conceive of this as an encyclopedia article -- it's apparently intended to be using Wikipedia as personal web-space in order to conduct original research. Which is not what Wikipedia is for. — Haeleth Talk 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


== Keep it! ==This will rely on community members to update the information and share collectively in this entry so that the entry can be completed. Would it make you happier if he wrote in "Unk" after each person whose position was unknown? I think you're trying to get it deleted for political reasons--you probably work for the legislature.--24.90.104.211 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. original research. In current form, violates verifiability policy as no sources are cited—the links are just generic links to descriptions of the district and/or the representative. If it is to be kept, then all unsourced material should be removed—which is, currently, all of it—and names reinserted one at a time with good, verifiable source citations of direct statements by the representative of what their position is. However, I still think the compilation of the material amounts to original research. It doesn't matter whether it is done by one editor or by "the community." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT!!!

Both political parties, the New York state legislature, government watchdog groups and local advocates have done next to nothing to make this information available.

This entry is neutral. It's reporting where elected officials stand on an issue. This entry is verifiable. Just comb through their voting records. This entry is not original. Their info is based on bills already proposed.

Any effort to remove this information serves only to prevent the public from knowing about public officials.

If this entry is removed, hopefully it will reappear elsewhere on the Internet, and spawn similar efforts on other issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.73.205.42 (talk • contribs)

  • DELETE too parochial. 132.205.95.27 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no problem with this information appearing elsewhere on the Internet, but I don't think this encyclopedia is supposed to be used to tally legislators' positions in this method. --Metropolitan90 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, this really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT in agreement with Haeleth and Dpbsmith and Met90 and Core. Besides, when I read the title I thought of a wikilist with just one entry: "1. Missionary." New York has liberal state laws: The one man and one woman can have the lights either on or off. Barno 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • DELETE I created this here and see your point; I'll move it elsewhere. Any suggestions for who will host an active, free-standing wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedailypolitics (talk • contribs)
    • I'm not sure why this has to be on a wiki (after all, there are basically only two options for each legislator's entry), but check the list of wikis at Wikia.com. I'm sure this page could fit into something there. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: There is a clear consensus to categorise and delete here - but how exactly to close this AfD is a bit vexing. It's not clear that the categorisation is complete. Basically, I see two options:

  1. Keep all the articles until it's confirmed that they've been categorised, then... um... well, god knows. WP:PROD them? Except, of course, that any article which has been nominated for deletion before cannot be prodded. Ignore all rules and speedy them? God help us, another 100-article AfD? I think there's a high chance they'd just be forgotten about and hang around for months.
  2. Or I can delete them all now, and if any of these lists have not been fully categorised and someone wants to complete the work, they can contact me and I'll restore them to userspace.

I'm going with 2, especially given that no-one's objected to Dr Zak's assertion "delete, categories exist" below, despite this AfD hanging around for several extra days. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD will take a while to close, and I may be interrupted before finishing - if you notice any of these lists or links to them still hanging around, please do not contact me to say "hey, you didn't delete x" until tomorrow (Tuesday 18th July). --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States musicians[edit]

This list and the sublists linked from it were originally deleted after their first AfD. However, due to the absence of AfD tags on all the sublists during the course of AfD 1, a deletion review has found it necessary to undelete and relist all deleted pages.

Pages nominated for deletion are: List of bands from California, List of United States musicians, List of Alabama musicians, List of Alaska musicians, List of California musicians, List of Delaware musicians, List of Connecticut musicians, List of Florida musicians, List of Idaho musicians, List of Illinois musicians, List of Iowa musicians, List of Louisiana musicians, List of Maryland musicians, List of Massachusetts musicians, List of Michigan musicians, List of Missouri musicians, List of Nevada musicians, List of New Jersey musicians, List of New Mexico musicians, List of New York musicians, List of Pennsylvania musicians, List of Washington musicians, List of Wisconsin musicians, List of bands from Alaska, List of bands from Arizona, List of bands from Arkansas, List of bands from Connecticut, List of bands from Colorado, List of bands from Florida, List of bands from Georgia, List of bands from Hawaii, List of bands from Idaho, List of bands from Iowa, List of bands from Indiana, List of bands from Kansas, List of bands from Illinois, List of bands from Kentucky, List of bands from Louisiana, List of bands from Maryland, List of bands from Massachusetts, List of bands from Maine, List of bands from Michigan, List of bands from Minnesota, List of bands from Missouri, List of bands from Mississippi, List of bands from Montana, List of bands from Nebraska, List of bands from Nevada, List of bands from New Hampshire, List of bands from New Jersey, List of bands from New Mexico, List of bands from New York, List of bands from North Carolina, List of bands from North Dakota, List of bands from Ohio, List of bands from Oklahoma, List of bands from Oregon, List of bands from Pennsylvania, List of bands from Rhode Island, List of bands from South Carolina, List of bands from South Dakota, List of bands from Tennessee, List of bands from Utah, List of bands from Vermont, List of bands from Texas, List of bands from Virginia, List of bands from West Virginia, List of bands from Wisconsin, List of bands from Wyoming, List of bands from Washington, and List of Georgia musicians.

Procedural nomination. No opinion. The original nomination follows. --Kimchi.sg 12:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the musicians listed here are notable for being from the United States; many are not even notable. This is the beginning of an attempt to change all of these lists into categories. There are already categories for many of these lists: for example, there is a list of bands from California and a Category:California musicians. This is redundant and, since the categories are more appropriate, the lists should be deleted. --Stellis 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - In other words, do what's necessary to convert these lists into categories, per Stellis. Tevildo 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholeheartedly support. Hooray for the unheralded, unappreciated "janitors" of Wikipedia! Thanks! Captainktainer * Talk 12:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion and conversion to categories. However this looks like a task for a Bot or someone with a week to spare --Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I was involved in maintaining both of the Wisconsin articles on this list due to my involvement in WikiProject Wisconsin. I vote weak delete because the Wisconsin articles were frequently "vandalized" by anons adding red links to bands and musicians without asserting their notability. The articles were too hard to maintain too. I think that categories are a better route, because notability is automatic (or else the article will eventually be nominated on AfD). The problem is that the categories don't allow for a list of notable artists/bands to be added later. These lists HAVE to be converted into categories so the data is not lost. Hopefully a bot can do that task. --Royalbroil 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, categorise per nom. This is exactly what categories do well. As for making lists of notable artists/bands to add later, that's what project pages are for! — Haeleth Talk 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise as per nom. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Categorize -- definitely a better way to go, as it decreases the amount of maintenance -- MrDolomite | Talk 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I have worked on some, I do believe the lists are useful. You can make almost any list into a category but I don't believe that would be best for wikipedia. List of architects could easily be a category but does well as a list. Maybe what would be best is deleting red linked bands as they aren't notable to even have a page yet, leaving bands that are noticible enough to have there own page. Dark jedi requiem 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recategorize. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Yeah, I say make categories for all the pages. ren0talk 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize, agree with above and per original AfD. —Centrx→talk • 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as useful lists. Capitalistroadster 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Delete all' and recategorize, categories would work much better here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All and Categorize per above. Naconkantari 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all, then delete. Not otherwise. — RJH (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all as needed, and delete, in agreement with the apparent consensus above. Barno 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it particularly useful when state lists are broken down by city, such as that of List of bands from Ohio. I don't think the sub-categorization would be as clean using categories. And as far as red links go, while a blue link may indicate notability, I don't feel a red link necessarily means non-notability. In fact, it may encourage people to create a new article for a notable band. Hoof Hearted 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all and delete, I actually stumbled on this looking for the category for Massachusetts musicians, and wondered "Why does this exist when a category would do the work?" And wouldn't you know, the AfD notice was there waiting for me! Categories do work much better in these cases, and if a city is lucky enough to have multiple significant musicians heralding from it, a new category for "Musicians from CityXXX" wouldn't bother me, either. I would encourage moving even the redlinked subjects for now; let's deal with their presence on those lists another time. HumbleGod 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I, on crack? Forget that part about "moving" the redlinks to categories. Sheesh. HumbleGod 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all and delete Organization is a good thing. This will pay dividends in reduced maintenance. -- Scientizzle 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support for Categorize and delete. (I take it this will mean that anything that any links to the articles will be fixed as well?) I was helping maintain the List of bands from Oregon, and think lists are handy, but understand the reasons for the nomination. No loss of data (except for redlinks of dubious value) would be good. Thanks for tagging this and opening it up for debate--as a fairly new user, the disappearance of the article kept me puzzled for a few days until I learned to check the deletion log...thus, if deleted, it will be necessary to tag/protect/redirect/whatever the article so it doesn't get recreated endlessly. Katr67 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete This information should be categorized, but I hate to see articles deleted before categories have been created. I suggest deleting them after a reasonable amount of time has been given to interested parties to create them. A week, at least. -Freekee 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest that if anyone does verify that every artist in a state is categorized properly, they make a note in the article's Talk page. I've done this for Alabama and Oregon, so feel free to follow that format. HumbleGod 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Redlinks are the problem. fearisstrong 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete...I would have said keep a few days ago, but now I agree with Katr67's and Royalbroil's arguments (see above). There are a lot of anonymous editors posting vanity entries on these lists, from what I've seen on List of bands from Oregon, and it makes it difficult to maintain. That same list now has dubious genre categories and isn't alphabetised. This process of reaching consensus through formal nomination is a good thing, though. I like the idea of lists of (whomever) from (wherever), but all the anonymous vanity edits on these lists are annoying. -little otik 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the importance of tagging and listing all 50 + 50 = 100 article! Look how much discussion this has brought to this AFD. There are 5 "list of ... from ..." contributors representing 3 states already! This is why EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE needs to have the AFD tag applied. Contributors learned of this AFD from the tags. I'm glad to see an improvement to the AFD system! --Royalbroil 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categories exist. Dr Zak 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Dr Zak's brief, but all encompassing statement FancyPants 03:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and then Delete. AfD for each of these articles? The mind does not just boggle; it pops right out of the skull. Herostratus 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Fiorentino[edit]

Was prodded on the 3rd, then removed on the 6th. SOmeone then tagged for speedy delete, but that was reverted to the 3rd's prod. Procedural listing as reprodding was out of process. The prod reason was failing WP:PORN BIO. She has 91 credits on her IAFD profile, 9 short of the porn bio's standards. Metros232 12:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I'd like to point out that WP:PORN BIO says "around or over 100 edits." 91 seems close enough to count. If someone can find another notability criterion that she meets or weakly meets, I honestly think she should be included. Captainktainer * Talk 12:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The article is too short to be a biography in its current state. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should not remove this because she is 9 films out of 100 shy of meeting a proposed guideline. Yamaguchi先生 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The name of the guideline is WP:PORN BIO. Note the bold part. Does the article resemble one? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ultimately, while the number of films Ms. Fiorentino is in is close to the 100 mark in the guideline, there isn't any other claim to notability and the article, as it currently stands, doesn't resemble a biography, but more of a bloated piece containing statistics exclusively. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 20:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two points need to be made here. First, Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) suggests that if an adult performer "has been in around or over 100 movies" they may merit an article, the one hundred mark is an approximation, not a concrete figure. Secondly, if you combine the two databases referred to within the article, it adds up to well over one hundred credits, even after subtracting the duplicates which come about from alternative title names. I understand that the purpose of proposing the PORN BIO guideline is to discourage every 18 year old girl out there with an erotic website from spamming Wikipedia, but this porn star actually is one, and I see no valid reason why this article should not be included. RFerreira 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree with that Chwyatt 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Does seem to comply with the spirit of what's notable under WP:PORN BIO. Obviously need some expansion. --Satori Son 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is a notable porn star erasing would make no sense Yuckfoo 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobism[edit]

non-notable neologism Travelbird 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeaktoy studios[edit]

non-notable studio, no relevant Google hits as far as I can see Travelbird 12:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odaine Brissett[edit]

Delete as a non-notable player. Gay Cdn 12:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I can't find any relevent Ghits. Srose (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7, non-notable high school player. The article cites retriving the text from another page, which is currently deleted. Take a look at the deletion log. Also, it if you don't believe in the speedy deletion, then it can be most certainly be deleted as a crystal ballism Yanksox 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Voice[edit]

Delete as advertisement. Gay Cdn 12:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otrum[edit]

Delete as spam. The phrase, "We can supply..." is a dead giveaway, plus it is the editor's only article. Gay Cdn 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan human rights[edit]

POV essay, not encyclopedic. Prod by other user was removed, thus listed here Travelbird 12:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless miraculously transformed into an encyclopedia article. To pick a random example of a policy this currently fails, how about our central pillar WP:V? No citations, and none of the likely search terms return any Google results in English, which makes this all rather tricky to verify. — Haeleth Talk 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic material, POV. enochlau (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While an article denoting Taiwanese human rights may be pertinent for an encyclopedia, this article isn't. If somebody recreates the article later with real sources I wouldn't mind too much. --ColourBurst 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Not a neologism, used in formal education contexts. Kimchi.sg 15:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minibeast[edit]

neologism, comes close to CSD for nonsense Travelbird 12:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep per Deb Delete as nonsense tagger.--Chaser T 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with improvement and explanation. It isn't nonsense. It is an article obviously written by a child who sincerely wishes to contribute. The word "minibeast" is used nowadays in primary schools when teaching about insect life (because it covers a range of creatures that aren't, technically, insects). Deb 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left an apologetic welcome msg at the creator's talk page. Deb, do you know of any sources that confirm what you're saying? I'd be content to take your word for it, but some verification would prevent future AfDs. The intentions of the creator weren't obvious to me.--Chaser T 13:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've rewritten the article, trying to keep as much of the original as possible out of respect for Hannah. I've also added references; they may not be the best quality but I hope other people will step up to the plate, especially people with knowledge of primary education. If it isn't up to the usual Wikipedia par, I think we should let it slide just a little; I think it's best that we not bite the children. Captainktainer * Talk 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search turns up a lot of educational sites, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council seem to advocate using the term in primary education [25]. Oldelpaso 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. This is a "formal neologism" and is part of the UK's formal teaching terminology. It is thus also a term that UK Primary school (age 5-11) children will look up on a regular basis. Such terms strengthem wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 13:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • references: Ghits for search of minibeast plus "National Curriculum" shows a multitude of formal, school based documentation for the currency of this term. While iot may be "pseudo-scientific" it is part of the introduction to science, all the way from Reception classes though primary education. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-established term anyway - if it's actually in the National Curriculum, even better. I'd also like to compliment Hannah on putting together a rather better initial article than many of our more (supposedly) adult contributors. :) Tevildo 14:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nobody is going to vote to delete this, so let's get this out of the way ASAP. (The term has been in constant use by millions of people for several decades; not sure how much more established you can get.) — Haeleth Talk 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Keep. ZsinjTalk 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Age Institute (College)[edit]

Spamvertising for nonnotable computer school in Kenya. NawlinWiki 13:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought the same thing (see its talk page) when it was first created and tagged it speedy. However, it seems to be a big thing there. Definitely needs cleaning up. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 13:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - brief examination suggests it's notable and worth keeping. Have categorised it. --JennyRad 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Kenyan computer school is notable enough. RFerreira 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASAcast[edit]

This nomination is odd - I vote Delete based on WP:VANITY grounds; the author admits on her user page that she works for NASA doing programing and podcasting. I am putting this out there for comment - can government information be non-notable? Gay Cdn 12:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite and keep. It's a fairly major NASA outreach program. Government information can be non-notable, but only under fairly unlikely circumstances. I'm not even sure it counts as vanity- nationalism, sure, but it isn't promoting the author, close associates, or family of the author. Instead, it's promoting her government, which can be fixed with a cleanup. Captainktainer * Talk 13:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Government information can be non-notable, but not in the case of an agency like NASA that often has huge public interest. An army general writing about his specialty or a publicly funded scientist writing about their branch of science are just experts writing about what they know. There might be vanity involved as motive or vanity-like side-benefits of greater recognition and so more chance for the program to be renewed or expanded, but I don't think the Wikipolicy applies to that. I hope User:Allisonhazen puts effort into the article to flesh it out and make it encyclopedic. And I hope she improves the NASA TV article too. Just by coincidence, I was watching NASA TV earlier today (not the podcast though) during the second spacewalk of STS-121. Riveting. Flying Jazz 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and innovative program of a notable agency. I've wikified and cleaned-up the article a bit. -- Mikeblas 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Kungfuadam as nonsense. Kimchi.sg 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZ's first werewolf film[edit]

Delete as this article is not encyclopedic. The film in reference may or may not be notable (it does not have an article here) but this claim, even if true and verifiable does not belong. Gay Cdn 13:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural habitat of most of the snakes of Australia[edit]

Delete as it is simply generic information with no encyclopedic value. Gay Cdn 13:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darek Sokol[edit]

The subject is a professional commercial artist and interior decorator, but not of notability to merit an article. There are 384 Google hits, which bring up advertising sites Tyrenius 13:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_arts Tyrenius 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Feels like a vanity page. -- Gogo Dodo 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Doesn't look too promising. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about Darek Sokol's present activity. It rather showes (or suppose to show) his about 10 years input in restoration and conservation of historic places of significant value while back in Poland. I'm a first time user of Wikipedia (just registered 2 days ago) and regardless what other admins call me ("malicious vandal" etc.) I would like to stay a member at Wikipedia and learn how to write a good articles. I would expect some help though, not only a criticism from experienced members as you are. I was going to work on the article and enrich it with some photographs and facts. I may delete the last lines about Sokol's present activity in the USA if it may prevent the article from deletion. Also I want to mention that this person is not only a restorator and artist but also quite influential person in some Christian circles. Besides his artistic achievements he also graduated from the Evangelical School of Theology in Wroclaw [26] , Poland, where he proved to be a good leader and youth mentor.

(I noticed that many AOL users have the same problem: shared IP problems, accusations of vandalizing Wikipedia, etc.) I'd like you to help me with that, rather than calling me names. I hope all that I wrote here will find some understanding. --Darpics

    • Comment: I left the standard welcome message on your talk page. If you take a look through some of the links there and also take a look at WP:N, you'll see why articles sometimes get deleted. And try not to panic over vandalism claims - like you said, AOL users are very hard to identify here so they often get mistaken for vandals. Since you set up a specific user ID, hopefully that will happen less often. Sorry for your awkward introduction here! —Wknight94 (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per Gogo Dodo. I fail to see anyone here calling anyone names. You may want to read the WP policies and guidelines regarding WP:BIO and WP:NOT for assistance. Tychocat 10:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Neil[edit]

Nonnotable teen singer-songwriter. Her first album has an Amazon sales rank below 400,000, and her second has no rank at all. Somewhere around 200 Ghits (~900 for "Katie Neil", many not applicable). NawlinWiki 13:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny selleslags[edit]

Vanity article about a non-notable actor Travelbird 11:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity article; no google hits.--Anthony.bradbury 11:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity Nuttah68 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excuse me but this article is about me; I just enterd my name in the search for a joke. I never thaught that I would find myself on it; you may delete it, because I haven't starred in movies yet. I only made short films. However the info is acurate. I am just not important enough to be listed here. danny {{}} NawlinWiki 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NawlinWiki 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G7 per Danny's comment above. Tevildo 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy the English Vampire Slayer[edit]

I'm wavering, hence this AfD for peer review and decision. There are many Ghits, but all seem like well placed links to publicise this movie, which appears otherwise to be wholly non notable. IMDB has an entry, but those can be self placed. So thsi needs to be thought through by people here before a conclusion is reached. Convince me it is notable and I'll withdraw happily. Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - It's hard to tell with this one. I get roughly 700 hits for the name, which is high, but I would still say sub-standard. I also can't tell if the company who did it is actually well known or not. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For several reasons:
    1. ) This short-film is actually fairly famous amongst fans of the Buffyverse on the net and it often comes up on message boards, and although I can't find out how many downloads it has during the many years it has been freely available, I'm guessing it's at least thousands (considering that the new Angel fan film, Cherub was only released in February 2006, and already has over 100 000 downloads.
    2. ) Surely 690 google hits is more than a fair amount.
    3. ) Don't films deserve the right to an article as long as they does not break anything in the WP:Deletion Policy? "Fluffy" is a film, admittedly it is low low budget short-film (just over 18 minutes) that is seen by less people than a film like Star Wars, but "Fluffy" is still a film.
    4. ) Star Trek has been allowed articles on various of it's fan films, and in my opinion rightfully so. Check out these articles:
    5. ) Notability is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy ("official policy"). Wikipedia:Notability is not an official policy, it 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.".

      Notability can be a problem with say a local band in London, where people maybe unable to verify anything about the band. How would a wikipedian in France know the band truly even existed? This film is entirely verifiable by the external links available, it does not contain any original research. However in my opinion "Fluffy" along with "Cherub", "Consanguinity", & "Forgotten Memories"with are just about notable enough anyway.

    6. ) I only just created the article today and it could be hugely improved, give me a few days, and this article will be better. -- Paxomen 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability can be a problem with say a local band in London, where people maybe unable to verify anything about the band. — No. The problem with that band is verifiability. It is unverifiable, and Wikipedia is not permitted to have an article about it. The problem with a band is notability when the only sources of information about the band, that are to be had, are not independent of the band itself (e.g. reprinted press releases, advertisements, autobiographies, the band's web sites, and so forth). Uncle G 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not a very good film, but it is known in the fan community. Also, Wired recently cited the film in an article on Whedonverse fanfilms, which satisfies WP:WEB on its own. MikeWazowski 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly because I see it has an imdb listing. That, plus mention in Wired cited by MikeWazowski, which only mentions it in passing but calls it "one of the first widely watched Whedonverse fan films," puts it within the borderline for me. imdb user rating of 3.3/10? Wow, I do believe that's the lowest imdb rating I've ever seen. Even Blood Feast got more. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good lord. It is notable after all! Well, only just by the look of the IMDB rating, but that in itself is notable! I thus withdraw my nomination. Since I see no "delete" comments I believe this may be closed currently. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to Keep but I feel that maybe this entry should be expanded/merged into a larger article concerning itself with notable Buffy parodies, such as Fluffy... or Barry the Demon Hunter.Jayunderscorezero 11:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Animation Society[edit]

Anime society that appears to have only ever existed at Lynchburg College; their website is defunct; 54 unique Ghits (almost all of them WP and its mirrors or lists of anime societies); nonnotable and unverifiable. NawlinWiki 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. There are organizations for anime at every college. Ryulong 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mind you, I think this society, if it existed, would be notable by its strange secrecy, but the unverifiable nature of the article and lack of citations bespeaks hoax to me. Tychocat 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete. Haukur 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Right Way[edit]

Delete as it lacks any context. It appears to be a very limited summary of a television show. Gay Cdn 13:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A1 per nom. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Hour Films[edit]

Delete as a non-notable company. I first though it was a hoax article based on everything past the first paragraph, but it is a real corp,[[28]], just not meeting the requirements for WP:CORP. Gay Cdn 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Magic Delete - good lord, that's a load of bollocks past the first paragraph! MikeWazowski 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the faintly amusing but unsourced and unverifiable material about Scott Brown's previous reincarnation and his adventures in purgatory and in hell. As always, the issue is not whether this material is true, but whether it has been published by a reliable source. If this fanciful material has, in fact, been published in e.g. an interview in the mainstream press it can be reinserted if properly described and attributed: "In an interview, Brown said that in purgatory God had told him he would not be admitted because of the thousands of leopards he had killed in his previous life," and cite the newspaper or magazine, date, page number, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Once the nonsense is removed, what you have is an unsourced short paragraph that does not give any reason for believing that Magic Hour Films meets WP:CORP or is notable in any other way. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Almost a dicdef, certainly no notability per WP:CORP. Tychocat 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Management and Economics Students' Association[edit]

Delete as a non-notable student group. Gay Cdn 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its the largest DSA group at UTSC... second largest group after the student union. For the university of toronto at scarborough, this is its most notible group.--Skugg 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student organizations at single universities are rarely notable and the article coes not suggest any notability beyond the school. Eluchil404 07:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - plus, it's an essay, not an article. DS 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the british empire a good thing?[edit]

OR on a topic that is covered in much more detail elsewhere in Wikipedia Nuttah68 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Expression of opinion is the purpose of the article, and the factual information is, indeed, covered in more detail elsewhere. --Gray Porpoise 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A) Yes (B) Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR, article title likely to provoke controversy. Tevildo 14:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'm notifying the author and explaining. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an interesting subject, but better dealt with elsewhere. Niall Fergusson has talked about this a lot, though the wikipedia rticle on him is a little light in that area. Artw 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Redirected. Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin[edit]

Delete as it is an article about the origin of the name, not about any specific person. Gay Cdn 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7 - fails to assert person's notability. Kimchi.sg 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Rubinoff[edit]

Delete as a non-notable person who fails WP:BIO. It is a history of his life and then a link to his new company. Gay Cdn 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a probable A7 candidate. --DarkAudit 14:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete The keep voters was only if claims were supported in the article, which wasn't. Jaranda wat's sup 04:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fairfax-Harwood[edit]

Delete as a non-notable person who fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Chrisd87 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article makes an unsoureced claim that "Mark has produced records from a wide variety of musical forms from Neil Innes and Ian Page and The Affair to Cradle of Filth and Extreme Noise Terror." That appears to be somewhat notable if true. Yanksox 15:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it can be established that he produced the people that it says he did, then keep. If that turns out not to be true, then send it to the shredder. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but only if the claims within the article can be substantiated. Srose (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Harwood here. I found a link to my name from my girlfriend Louise Robey's page and simply added what I thought would be of interest. More in order to provide a link to my sister Oriel who I think deserves it. As to the information I have provided it is all easily verifible try google. Its about one tenth of the credits from important bands that I have. The Aviation expert that flaged it for deletion may be interested in linking me to my uncle Robin Thomas and his firsts in light aviation history. See power flow systems Daytona and laminar flow systems. I am not trying to big myself up by dishonest claims. I don't know how to program in computer language and I am asking for help. Cheers - unsigned comment was added by Bassmec 14:56, July 10, 2006

  • Comment as the nominator, I wish to add further thoughts - I did not nominate this article under issues of verifiablity. Also, now that the author has indicated himself to be the subject of the article, it has issues around WP:VANITY. Finally, a person is not notable because they are related to a sister or uncle who is notable.--Gay Cdn 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that the vanity issue is a little troublesome, but technically there is no actual policy against contributing to an article about yourself. I think the music claims are actually notable, although they need to be sourced - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 11:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not create the page it was there with just my name on it. Is the problem that I am the boyfriend of one of Canada's top actresses well known as a gay icon?. All the information I have provided is true, I am not trying to big myself up. I am just trying to provide information on a formerly blank page with only my name at the top. Please help me with the wikifying etc because if you want to add any more information about me, I was the first person statemented by Suffolk education for dyslexia. Thats how come I got a tape recorder.

Oh and PS Che? Is it in factor that I have a hyphenated name and that you may have found out that my stepson James is the future Duke of St Albans?. Bring forth the Guillotine

  • Userify unless sourced to meet WP:V & WP:RS (in which case, keep). Notable claims, just not supported. I've rearragned some of the copy, but much of the bio section needs an encyclopedic style rework. -- Scientizzle 18:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected per suggestion -- nae'blis (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Midlothian Question[edit]

Duplicate article. The article name is incorrect, and should be "West Lothian question" which already exists. This had already been pointed out even before the article had been created — see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-01-15#The Midlothian Question. Personally I don't think there's much useful content in The Midlothian Question to consider a merge into West Lothian question. I suspect the Midlothian/West Lothian confusion came about because Midlothian is perhaps the better known of the two regions. --A bit iffy 14:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Perhaps worth a redirect, if it's a common misapprehension? Tevildo 14:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator for deletion, I've changed my mind — should be a redirect rather than a straight delete, as per Tevildo. --A bit iffy 14:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. I'm not sure this is a common misnomer, but it is clearly refering to the West Lothian question. -- GWO
  • Redirect If one person made this mistake others may too and "redirects are cheap"™. Eluchil404 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A8 (copyvio) by Haukurth. Tevildo 15:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parity of healthcare[edit]

Delete per WP:NOR Clappingsimon talk 14:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete essay. Nuttah68 14:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above. Dina 14:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Chrisd87 14:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. CSD A8 - copyvio from commercial content provider (textbook in this case). Kimchi.sg 15:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managed care quaternion[edit]

Delet per WP:NOR Clappingsimon talk 14:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This author has already created an article called Parity of healthcare that is identical to this one and equally questionable. Dina 14:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD A7.--Andeh 16:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Buddhists[edit]

Hoax religious group (Buddhists who advocate suicide and take hallucinogens, and are only found in one small village in England?) Zero Ghits; article is author's only WP contribution. NawlinWiki 14:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Obvious hoax. Possibly G3 or G1 territory. Tevildo 14:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. I wondered about this when I first saw the article, but tagged it for wikification and verification anyway, hoping it was not a hoax. Obviously, I was incorrect. Can this be speedied? ---Charles 15:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment G1 tag added - let's see how it goes. Tevildo 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koptalk[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion among Wikipedia's editors. The aim is to reach a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia, using Wikipedia's policies as the benchmark. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or meatpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

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

Article on on Liverpool Football Club fansite. Fails all three criteria listed WP:WEB. Although only 3 days old, the article has become an edit-war between members self-promoting the site e.g. Www koptalk com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and its detractors (mainly over its subscriber content) from a blog at koptalkinsider.wordpress.com who also spam the site with links to rival fan sites. Is any of this encyclopedia-worthy at all? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Editors, beware of the sockpuppets: http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/2006/07/09/should-koptalk-be-removed-from-wikipedia --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not meet the guideline for inclusion of websites, nor the policy on verification. While this has some association with arguably the most important football club in the world, notability doesn't "rub off" that easily. A google search yeilds zero "news" hits. While it does generate 718 unique hits, I was unable to find any that were from reliable sources. In the absence of any verifiable third party coverage that demonstrates the notability of this site, I must recomend deletion.}} - brenneman {L} 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Constructive criticism is fine but when an article is created purely to disrupt it destroys a fantastic free resource in Wikipedia. Any independent person should be able to identify between what is a genuine article be it positive or not and an article created to cause nothing but damage. www_koptalk_com 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - Don't want this article to be deleted, but even if it is, we'll document Oldham in some other way. It's only a matter of time before he's caught. Whether it's the Inland Revenue inspectors, the Charity Commission or the police, I'm not really bothered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.6 (talk • contribs)


  • Strongly oppose - Some of the edits that have taken place in the short time since this entry was added seem to have been done in the first instance by the owner of the site in question, then by others to counter what he is adding. I'm sure it isn't the first wikipedia article that started life under a cloud of controversy, but it is a controversial subject.

First of all, I'm quite new to the rules for Wikipedia entries, so please bear with me if I make any incorrect assumptions.

I feel the article is needed on Wikipedia, but perhaps under a different heading. I'll try and explain.

Mr Duncan Oldham is becoming quite a personality in his own right. He's certainly done enough over the years to be allowed an entry on Wikipedia (in my view). A carefully-written article on all of these sometimes newsworthy items would be worth adding to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, many of Mr Oldham's activities are controversial. However surely as long as they are all cited there should be no problem in them being included, whether positive or negative. In positive terms, Mr Oldham has claimed to carry out a lot of work for charity for example, some newspaper articles could perhaps be added by him to prove this. He's also claimed to be the instigator / creator of the first UK Liverpool FC newsgroup. His Koptalk site is effectively a more up-to-date use of technology. Although Mr Oldham isn't a famous personality as such, he's certainly infamous amongst supporters of Liverpool Football Club and with his involvement in websites promoting other soccer teams and also football in general (I can list these if required) then it's safe to say his infamy may also have spread within those communities.

He's known for a lot of things both good and bad. For example he once changed his name to "Mr Manchester United" by deed poll, something which made the national newspapers of the time if I'm not mistaken.

On the controversial side there is (citable) evidence that Mr Oldham has engaged in a long line of dubious activities. The blog mentioned has got a lot of the evidence included, but there is also evidence to be found on the Way-back Machine (archive.org).

Mr Oldham is Koptalk essentially - his "team" seems to consist of his family members, and as such perhaps a seperate Koptalk entry is overkill and merely a redirect would be needed.

There's no need to "spam" with links to other sites, but it did prove a point that other websites are more popular (or they were at the time I compared them after seeing them listed in the article).

So when I say "strongly oppose" I feel that rather than a deletion a rename and slight rewrite would be more in order.

If the Wikipedia policy is to remove entries on people who are controversial then yes, remove the entry, but I am sure that's not the case. It's certainly an interesting article to have in the enyclopedia, but careful monitoring is needed to ensure it is neutral with all claims cited. --Whatthef 15:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From what I've seen, it's not a notable website, and the article should be deleted. However [29] claims that it has been reported on in the Daily Star (not a credible source), and The Independent (a credible source) as well as other "media giants". It does sound like it was trivial coverage, rather than anything substantial, but it may not be. I'd tend towards deleting the article, but I'd like to see what this coverage is. Also, it's a shame that the article is being used both to air grievances, rather than just report on criticism, and to promote the owner's own website by blanking the criticism, and manipulating the external links. Hopefully this AfD will manage to keep to the topic of whether or not the website is notable or not. KeithD 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: Its in the interest of free speech that each side of the argument/view should be aired. Deleting this thread would not allow neutral people to come to their own conclusions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.128.217 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete This doesn't seem to meet WP:NPOV, and looks to these eyes as a thinly veiled attack page. --DarkAudit 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As you can tell by people who 'strongly oppose' this is just a personal attack on someone they don't like. I'm sure it's possible to have a balanced entry on Koptalk..... or may be not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.2.185 (talk • contribs) .

I do not believe that Wikipedia should eradicate reference to Koptalk - I think it is an interesting case of how a single individual using the net can exploit a respected institution like LFC and exploit its world wide followers. But to give a full picture Wikepeida should not lend credence to Koptalk's false claims and it should link to the sites of others especially koptalk-insider which is a dedicated not-for-profit site set up to expose Koptalk.

The testimonial to Koptalk from major newspapers - The Independent, for example - was given many years ago when Koptalk was, indeed, one of the most populated LFC sites simply because they were early days of the net and there were very few about. Oldham had engineered the takeover of Koptalk from the original creator. Most of that generation of members left Koptalk to open new sites. Mainly they disliked that Koptalk had been converted from a discussion site about LFC into a site about the owner, Duncan Oldham, his unsual sexual interests and and his various money making schemes, most of which had nothing to do with LFC. One of those schemes was a pyramid sales scheme in which he offered readers the opportunity of making quick money with very little effort by setting up sites like his own or by selling the scheme to others who would sell it to others and so on. Another was his attempt to circumvent securities law by selling shares in Koptalk to members. He was obliged to pay back the money. Oldham's response to this exodus of members was to buy up the domain names similar to thsoe of his rivals, and similar even to the LFC offical site, and redirect the traffic to his own site. His active editing of Wikipedia to support his false claim to be the No 1 site and to elminate references to other LFC fan sites is in this tradtion - including his attempt to crush the latest site set up by genuine fans who are upset by what they consider to be his exploitation of LFC and LFC supporters. http://www.koptalk-insider.com Actually he just bought that domain two days ago to redirect its traffic to his site.

His claim that various LFC footballers write for his site is false. In those early days - 5-7 years ago - he did contract to buy the rights to reproduce some syndicated articles by Tommy Smith and Ian St. John and the Liverpool writer Paul Tomkins - but he never paid them and they forbade him using their name.

Duncan Oldham claimed last week that he has taken 5 pounds advance payments from LFC supporters for 20,000 copíes of his proposed book "Anfield Exposed". The book is now in its third year of missed launches and he announced last week that it is now postponed until May of 2007. There is no such book. However the rpospeod title is typical of his exploitative attitude to the club he purports to support.

Oldham uses his site to collect for various causes and charities. The beneficiares of some of these charities are members of his family. Whatever the charity or cause he insists that donations are made out to him personally or his mother. He does not register any of them. He never produces accounts.

Koptalk claims to have connection to the players, directors and management of LFC. All these claims are false. Many of his "informers" are in fact aliases of Duncan Oldham He uses these "stories" to drum up paid membership in his Insider and Gold Club. Many of his members are people from Asia, Australia and the Americas who are not in a position to understand how his claims lack feasibility. They believe Koptalk is a Liverpool based site run by LFC fans. In fact it is run from Newcastle by Oldham alone with some help from his mother and a 17 yr old step brother. Oldham has a season ticket for Newcastle United, rarely if ever attends LFC games, and is in the process of starting similar sites for Newcasle, Spurs and Forest supporters.

He repeatedly claims he does not pay his two relatives who work for him. There are many obvious inconsistencies between his claims to make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, to buy 40,000 sterling mercedes and other vehicle, expensive video equipment and various properties (his latest target being a 300,000 property near the LFC training ground) and his claims to be poor, doing it as a hobby and unable to pay his relatives.

Many observors believe these inconsistences suggest his attempt to duck and weave to avoid investigation of various frauds including fraud of the public exchequer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs) I cannot put in the symbols you ask for - my user name is rupert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs)

In the article you say that Koptalk was founded by Duncan Oldham. In fact it was founded by Colin Seaman. He gave a share of it to Duncan Oldham. Apparently the Oldham takeover became complete. However, Colin Seaman's claim to co-ownership can be found on his own site at: http://www.dbcreate.com/dbcreate/content/team.htm

The following is a partial list of the sites squatted on by Duncan Oldham. This is not a contentious list he admits to it on his site. He admits that he has sat on these sites and pointed some of them to his own site to punish rival sites. Most of these sites have names similar to the names of rival sites. This list is taken from Koptalk-Insider which monitors his activities. The poster is "whois look up" _________________ Here are eight current squats - all three fanzines and 5 other main LFC sites. There’s probably more. Notice the dates and you’ll see all have been renewed at least once and he’s had some since 2001. A couple were pointed to his site until this information appeared on June 15th in another thread on this blog:

http://www.raotl.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: RAOTL.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record last updated on 12-Oct-2005. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001.

——–

http://www.liverpoolway.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: LIVERPOOLWAY.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536

Record last updated on 12-Oct-2005. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001.

——–

http://www.shanklygates.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: SHANKLYGATES.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.7980.014536 Record last updated on 20-Feb-2006. Record expires on 18-Feb-2007. Record created on 18-Feb-2003.

——–

http://www.lfconline.net/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: LFCONLINE.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record last updated on 25-Sep-2004. Record expires on 10-Oct-2006. Record created on 10-Oct-2001

——–

http://www.themissionstatement.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: THEMISSIONSTATEMENT.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.202.909822 Record last updated on 30-Nov-2005. Record expires on 01-Dec-2006. Record created on 01-Dec-2003.

——–

http://www.talklfc.co.uk/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM

Registrant type: UK Individual

Registrant’s address: The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service.

Domain name: TALKLFC.CO.UK

Registrant’s agent: PIPEX Communications Hosting Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG] URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk

Relevant dates: Registered on: 27-May-2004 Renewal date: 27-May-2008 Last updated: 27-May-2006

——–

http://www.ynwa.net/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: YNWA.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN [email protected] PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.7980.014536 Record last updated on 20-Feb-2006. Record expires on 18-Feb-2007. Record created on 18-Feb-2003

——–

http://www.ttwar.com/ Registrant: KOPTALK.COM PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK

Domain name: TTWAR.COM

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN PO Box 145 SCARBOROUGH, NORTH YORKSHIRE YO12 7XU UK +44.798004536 Record created on 10-Oct-2001 Record expires on 10-Oct-2006

he’s got others such as:

http://www.liverpoolfootballclub.org.uk/ http://www.liverpool-fc.net/ http://www.liverpool-fc.tv/ http://www.transferwhispers.com/ http://www.tribalfootball.co.uk/ http://www.caboodlenetwork.com/ http://www.chavgames.com http://www.footy4free.com http://www.freesky4pc.com http://www.upthetoon.com http://www.spursarmy.com http://www.michaelbarrmore.tv

  1. Will Robbo Says:
  1. Whois Lookup Says:

July 9th, 2006 at 2:14 am

And another registered on Friday is the name of the site which monitors his activities:

http://www.koptalk-insider.net/ Registrant: CABOODLE NETWORK PO Box 556 WALLSEND, TYNE-AND-WEAR NE28 7WZ UK

Domain name: KOPTALK-INSIDER.NET

Administrative Contact: OLDHAM, DUNCAN PO Box 556 WALLSEND, TYNE-AND-WEAR NE28 7WZ UK +44.202.909822

Record last updated on 07-Jul-2006. Record expires on 07-Jul-2008. Record created on 07-Jul-2006.

_________________________

signed : rupert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.76.91 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - this is a discussion on possible deletion for this article - we're trying to establish whether the Koptalk article meets the criteria required to warrant an article. Most of the above is very interesting but doesn't directly relate to whether this article has met the requirements to prevent its deletion. It has already been generally agreed that this is a not-notable website that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Can we concentrate on determining whether the article has some justification to exist within the Wikipedia? Budgiekiller 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wants A Piece Of You[edit]

Non-notable album, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Chrisd87 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It exists, but it never charted [30]. -- Mikeblas 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a compilation would usually not be noteworthy, however, I feel that this one is because it is the only She album to be released. But, delete if you will. Manolo Siegfried

  • Keep as the band seems notable, see the allmusic bio [31]. This is the only album for this band, released in 1999, although the band was around in the sixties and seventies, and released one single. It's strange to have the album on wikipedia before the band, but I can't see a problem with it. --Joelmills 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an entry for the band, but it got deleted. Manolo Siegfried

    • Comment I would suggest rewriting an article on She and making sure that the article claims notability and is well referenced. Sites like allmusic and the Village Voice article mentioned above would make a good start. I saw the band referred to as legendary and as the original grrl group, so claiming notability shouldn't be so hard. Any band that releases a compilation close to 30 years after breaking up and gets notices from reliable press has to be somewhat notable. --Joelmills 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC - no chart hit, on;y 1 album. BlueValour 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday (David Bowie song)[edit]

Never released as a single ... not-notable song by extremely notable artist DavidHumphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUT THE THINGS I MESSED UP 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy A8 (copyvio) by Dpbsmith. Tevildo 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Horsemen of the Problem Solving Apocalypse[edit]

Essay, original research. Chrisd87 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Nuttah68 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Clappingsimon talk 14:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Patent copyvio. Will go list it as such. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was redirect to Royal Hospital School. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holbrook Coastguard[edit]

Tagged by an anonymous user[33], who as such was unable to create a discussion page. No vote recommend deletion. — Jul. 1, '06 [19:08] <freak|talk>

This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to RHS per above. Tevildo 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (restated because I "opined" prior to the relisting). Disregard this if you are counting with my opinion above, please. Fiddle Faddle 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David K. Kyle[edit]

Local politician who has never held a state or national office. --DarkAudit 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Corcoran[edit]

Non-notable candidate. No mention of ever holding public office. Only relevant ghits were his campaign page and Wikipedia. --DarkAudit 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per policiy on candidates doktorb wordsdeeds 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable even if he did win the November election to the Maryland House of Delegates. And the primary isn't until September, so for all I know, he isn't even guaranteed to be the Republican nominee in November. John Broughton 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name seems familiar (maybe Ive heard his campaign adds) but nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:BIO. Eluchil404 07:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all these reasons, and because it doesn't even contain one citation.kdogg36 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-mesh[edit]

NPOV. Appears to be a marketing blurb. Ideogram 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite - Wi-mesh itself is notable enough in my opinion [34]. This article should be cleaned up though. Tone down the Wi-Mesh Alliance stuff, it should be a small blurb, not the opening sentences. General POV cleanup too. Delete if it can't be cleaned up by the time this AfD expires. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with wireless mesh network per Vegaswikian below --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup but don't delete, per above. SM247My Talk 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems a bit like a self promo. If there is anything worth keeping, merge into wireless mesh network or one of the 802.11 articles. Vegaswikian 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion, so that a decision may usefully be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
bainer (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IEEE 802.11s for now. The IEEE has started work on a new 802.11s standard that merges both proposals from the SEEMesh and Wi-Mesh Alliance consortiums, so there's no real reason to have a seperate article on the Wi-Mesh Alliance anymore. But until the IEEE finally ratifies the new standard, we won't know for certain what neogolism the industry is going to settle on, but judging from the fact that WiFi and WiMAX are commonly accepted now, WiMesh is a pretty good bet. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete Dpbsmith and BlueValour is right. Jaranda wat's sup 04:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of DiC Entertainment[edit]

Chronicle of the logos used after the credits of TV shows produced by DiC; logocruft run amok. —tregoweth (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure, but there is an article on closing logos for screengems and viacom as well; in general they seem to be proper daughter articles on the subject, albiet in need of sources. RN 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a perfectly valid dissection and detailing of production logos, and something of such a caliber regarding these logos might be very hard to find outside of Wikipedia. It's as valid as the Viacom logos article, and for that matter any Wikipedia article chronicling logos or logo design of any type. Brillemeister 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as original research. No published sources are cited to show that "Closing logos of DiC Entertainment" is of any important or has been written about in any venue meeting the reliable source guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To reinforce Dpbsmith's point, I mention that there are people who write extensively about logos. See this or this, for examples. It should be relatively easy to source this if it is not original research. Uncle G 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a bit of discussion of the closing logos here and a fortunecity site - maybe not enough yet though. Difficult AFD in some ways. (procedurally simple, though). RN 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DiC Entertainment. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Clearly the "among television's scariest logos" type of stuff needs to be sourced (or deleted per WP:NOR). Real subject matter that millions of people saw, although few noted at all. If these articles can be cited by something more than a YouTube thingie that the same person might have posted, then I would call these good enough daughter articles to be kept, even though actual interest in the topic seems very much a niche phenomenon. I'm not sure the three logo articles would be any more encyclopedically organized if merged into Viacom/ScreenGems/DiC articles or into a TV-closing-logos article; if kept they should probably remain standalone articles. Lacking reliable sources, though, it's hard to argue with Dpbsmith's WP:NOR call. No vote pending documentation. Barno 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, - we had this discussion with Walt Disney logos and while one logo to illustrate an article is fine, a gallery of logos is copyvio. BlueValour 02:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maines[edit]

non notable four-times failed candidate doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even though He is a regular theatre-goer and a "member" or "friend" of several fringe theatres. John Broughton 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kampungburn Community Online[edit]

Delete - non-notable message board. It has 149 registered members and not even its own domain name. The article is fairly well-written, but to make broad statements such as "Kampungburn is where friendship begins." about a message board with so few members is glaringly unfounded. Fabricationary 15:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied, and it reads like an advertisement for a spa or something. Tychocat 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BlueValour 02:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Five Clubs[edit]

Not Encyclopaedic. ArtVandelay13 15:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Football commentators use the term 'big four' or 'big five' a lot, but the exact definition varies from person to person. Some would call Aston Villa and Everton big clubs, based on past histories. Others would call Chelsea a big club, based on their current standing in the game. It ends up being original research, and thus non-encyclopaedic. KeithD 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with above comments. The article is completely POV and is based entirely on opinion which is not verifiable. - Pal 16:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not necessary. Cs-wolves 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Oldelpaso 16:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete POV original research doktorb wordsdeeds 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rubbish about Chelsea joining like it is an official table. There is no exact way of joing it they are Everton, Liverpool, Tottenham, Manchester United and Arsenal anyway. No-one ever said Villa were in it. It might be worth a mention in other articles but it doesn't need a seperate entry especialy one that is incorrect.SenorKristobbal 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably written by a Villa fan, since there's no way they're Big Five ahead of Spurs (and I'm not a Spurs fan). BoojiBoy 17:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary POV list, original research. Qwghlm 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inevitably POV and failing in WP:VER -- Alias Flood 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV As Above, and besides, how can you have a Big List without the Wolves? --Andymarczak 08:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everton and Villa? my ass. Philc TECI 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Brent Carpenter"[edit]

An author whose book, The Arcadian, per Google search, only seems to exist at brentcarpenter.com. NN, looks like vanity. Wikipedia is not for unpublished authors. Fan-1967 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO, self-published author with no indication of book's notability and no other biographical info to suggest author's notability. Wikipedia is not for people with spurious quotation marks around their names. Article is a synopsis of the book rather than attempting to describe the author, and so appears to be promotional in violation of WP:NOT. Barno 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --SweetNeo85 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-vacation blues[edit]

Simply rambling, is not a true disorder, and generally non-noteable. Lunar Jesters (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Surrey County Cricket Club. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Brown Caps[edit]

There is no use for this page, as no other one-day cricket team in the UK has a article listed. Discuss. Cs-wolves 16:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete this page, (and because we're striving to create a truly comprehensive encyclopaedia), shouldn't we create pages for the other Twenty20 teams (and onwards for 1 day teams), seeing as there is no info on the Brown Caps on the Surrey County Cricket Club page (and as we've established no other teams even have an article)? JoncomelatelyCome over 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely one-day and 20-20 teams are part of their respective county cricket clubs rather than separate teams? Surrey CCC's website puts them all in one fixture list, implying they are one entity. Oldelpaso 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case (and is most probably is) shouldn't we have at least ensure there is some info on the respective 1 day/Twenty20 teams on the CCC articles? The Surrey one mentions the Twenty20 teams once, and doesn't even mention the name change (from Lions to Brown Caps). I only started this article so that anyone as confused as I was might find that information - I don't think it matters on which page that info goes. JoncomelatelyCome over 22:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The limited-overs teams should be in time covered in the main CCC articles. I fancy we will only need articles if the CCC websites overflow, which isnt happening yet. Probably a redirect candidate.Hornplease 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no result - as is pointed out, this is part of a wider issue which cannot be solved by one AfD, and the lack of discussion here about the specific article reflects that. Someone can try and remove all the German terms if they want (they should), but be prepared to engage in a pointless edit war with Sheynhertz. The prevailing opinion on his RfC is that "...a serious underlying problem here is a cultural clash... therefore, my recommendation is that people give him a heaping serving of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and back off and think of creative ways to help him overcome his fears". I'll refrain from adding my interpretation of what that actually means, due to it not being particularly relevant to the closing of this discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pohl[edit]

This article has been copy-pasted from the German Wikipedia, plus it's not even clear if the content is notable, not to mention that many different topics have been squished into one article. Mo-Al 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you check the author's history, he's got hundreds thousands of these things, with the etymology (or what he calls "onomastics" which I don't think is actually a word) of every Germanic name there is. Check out his Move logs, where he's moved DAB pages (to distinguish between people of a name) to "Onomastics" pages, with the origin of the name. Fan-1967 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's been lots of discussion on this. Look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Mo-Al 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this is a problem with a genuniely mentally-unstable user. I suggest that we Close this AfD and wait until he's been suitably dealt with. Tevildo 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the mediation case was closed, and I don't really see what could be done anyway. It's not his encyclopedia, after all. Mo-Al 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Onomastics is definitely a word, and has an article on the English Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with this kind of article. They could be useful sometimes. But they would need to be in English, and the information would need to be accurate. It might be rather hard to verify. Rbraunwa 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not clear if onomastics articles belong in Wikipedia. There are plenty of things which Wikipedia is not. This, however, hasn't been covered. Mo-Al 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look's like the guy who made this article has now put the translation tag up. I'd say that we should wait for him to finish, but he just added it after a month of inactivity on this article. I doubt this would ever actually get translated. Mo-Al 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's simply useful, sort of an extended disambiguation page, covering not only homophones, but also other similar spellings. Translate to English, civilize and keep. And yes, onomastics is a proper word here. //Halibutt 07:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus - unfortunately, the interpretation of "indiscriminate collection of information" tends to be more subjective than, for example, interpreation of WP:V. Hence, we have here perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides and neither with sufficient support to be termed 'consensus'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars organizations[edit]

  • Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not so much a list as a collection of small articles. Thus the "lists" argument for deletion doesn't really apply here, IMO. Probably rename to something like Minor Star Wars organizations, currently a redirect. Most of these are incredibly important. Black Sun, ExGal, the Bounty Hunter's Guild and CorSec, for example, have all been in a lot of hugely important novels. Black Sun was central to the whole Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire project, and has been featured in a variety of other sources as well. The Peace Brigade was a major part of the 19-book New Jedi Order series. The 181st was in Aaron Allston's X-wing novels, and various comics. These are a huge part of the Star Wars universe, and are critical to the plots of a wide variety of novels and video games. -LtNOWIS 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LtNOWIS. BryanG(talk) 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with LtNOWIS. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if they are minor, they are not notable; lists of not notable things are also not notable, otherwise someone should just upload the telephone directory and call it List of minor telephone subscribers in the XXXX area. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope the closing admin really takes a hard look at the rationales being used for "keep" votes here. — Mike (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? I think the reasons given by LtNOWIS are good and concise. They show that these organizations have played a part in a number of Star Wars novels, and are therefore not made-up fan fiction. They have not had mere mentions in the novels, but have been described. There are a number of people interested in Star Wars, and who might want to find such information. The fact that the organizations are minor means that we probably don't want individual articles on each organization, but as WP:FICT guidelines say about minor characters in major universes, we now have them altogether in a single nice organized article as they ought to be. LtNOWIS has made a fully relevant argument for this article's inclusion which I concur with. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs better sourcing but so do lots of articles. As Sjakkalle says this is what the WP:FICT guideline calls for in these cases, merge otherwise nn articles into lists. Eluchil404 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is obvious from the comments above that, collectively, the information presented in this list is rather essential if you want to understand the Star Wars universe (a topic I'm no expert on, but read the comments and it's perfectly clear) and could - indeed, should, but that's for cleanup not AFD - be verified and referenced. At present, Wikipedia is split between a bunch of wikilumpers who say "small articles on small topics should be deleted! If they're important enough to keep but it's not possible to write a long article they should be stuck together in agglomerated articles!" and cite WP:FICT (amongst others) to help them, versus a bunch of wikisplitters who say "delete these horrid collective articles! If anything is worth keeping, it should be in a bunch of smaller, split-off articles!" and cite WP:LIST. This is the most unproductive type of argument imaginable - I really don't care whether we lump or split, but I hate to have to vote in AFDs to stop us losing content that clearly some people are finding relevant and useful, just because these two factions can't make their mind up... the bottom line is that content shouldn't be held to ransom at AFD in the fall-out between the battle of splitters and lumpers. Go and argue at some guideline talk pages, sort yourselves out, reach consensus, then come back and start AFDing whichever type of the articles (piddly or listy) you've decided to purge. Arguing about this on fragmented AFD listings while waving great big content-whacking axes isn't safe and is unlikely to lead to the sane and centralized debate this obviously needs.TheGrappler 08:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I would disagree that one could get an accurate reflection of the importance of this article by reading the comments here. Editors of articles in this particular subject emigrate in mass to AfDs when one of their articles are threatened, regardless of notability guidelines. Keep an eye out for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of colors of Jedis' socks in the original trilogy. You also are misstating the support of my citing. I'm not citing the WP:LIST guideline, I'm citing the WP:NOT policy. If the content is deemed worthy of preserving, the various companies, if notable enough to the plot of whatever novel or film they came from, should be mentioned in said novel's or film's article. But the WP:NOT policy states that Wikipedia is specifically not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." If this isn't a "list of loosely associated topics," I don't know what is, and just because people find it interesting isn't reason enough to keep it around. — Mike (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let them have their fun, since in the last LucasCruft Purge a year ago, many loose articles were voted to be bunched up together like this where they wouldn't cause too much of a problem. But now even these lists aren't safe? It's a good thing I decided to form another wiki back then. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's all a crock of bollocks. DeAlOrNoDeAl 82.25.23.38 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 65% is a very loose consensus to delete, if one were to just perform a headcount. However, WP:V (and WP:RS) are non-negotiable, and in my judgement, there has been no provision of the necessary reliable verification during the course of the discussion. I leave it to others to decide if the page should be protected from recreation. Proto::type 11:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel_News_Agency[edit]

User:Danny Thinks the article should be deleted by the following logic:

"Joel Leyden is a known SEO spammer and states that on his website. He is using Wikipedia, and has admitted as such, to get traffic to his blog. He is not a noted journalist. I state this unequivocally as someone who has worked for 15 years in the Israeli media, and as anyone from the Hebrew wikipedia will tell you. In fact, he is an unknown in Israel. Here is a classic example of someone abusing wikipedia for personal gain. What is worse, his blog (and as an examination will show, it is nothing more) is one of the tools he is using to fight a custody battle with his ex-wife over his children. As a user, now banned, he attempted to use wikipedia to fight this same custody battle, as a perusal of the history of Raanana will show. In addition, he was banned for harrassing another user, both online and in person. The votes to keep included sockpuppets and personal friends, who have fewer than ten edits each, i.e., make 3 edits and vote for Joel. I am not even going to discuss his personal attacks against me or the foundation on his blog. Given the confusion of information and misinformation there, I can only wonder what kind of nonsense he is posting in his article. Nevertheless, I will state this, summarizing a lengthy email which I sent to the Arb Com about two months ago: if the Hebrew Wikipedia, based in Israel, sees fit to include a version of the article about him or his blog, I will support its inclusion in English. If not, I will continue to regard it as simple SEO spam and unverifiable drivel by someone attempting to use wikipedia to attain fame and pursue his own, selfish agenda, using false information, sock puppets, and what have you. I sincerely hope that this is not the direction that Wikipedia is taking. Danny 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" (from: User_talk:Ilmari_Karonen#Leyden)

I agree it should be deleted because of the degree to which it is promoting the subject of the article. It also have serious problems with WP:V I have semi-protected this page. If this causes you a problem please edit on the talk page. Due to past problems with socks if you have few than 150 edits please restrict yourself to commenting.Geni 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, in spite of the above user's comment, everyone is more than welcome to vote in this VfD, as is Wikipedia policy. Stanfordandson 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy also says that votes by anonymous or new users may be discounted or given less weight than votes by established users. I don't see how this is any different. It's just a proactive measure to head off the sockpuppets as opposed to an effort to clean things up and sort them out after the fact.--MikeJ9919 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html HOT OFF THE PRESS!]. I don't see any evidence of a July 5/6 deletion in the article history though, and I don't know why they think making parallel with Ken Lay is going to make people more sympathetic to them Bwithh 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been trying to gather verifiable facts about this agency for the purpose of an eventual rewrite. As these may be relevant to this debate, I thought I'd mention this here. Under the circumstances, I'll refrain from arguing either way about the fate of the current version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For people google-checking etc., note that there is a well-established organization sometimes known as "ITIM" or "The Israel News Agency" which as been around since 1950 and has relations with Israel's major newspapers[35]. This is not the same agency has the one being considered for deletion (www.israelnewsagency.com/ scroll all the way down the INA site and you'll see their own disclaimer).

  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM (Create stub for ITIM) This seems to be an amateur news blog run by an all volunteer staff. For something which is supposed to be a leading news organization, they seem oddly proud about being accredited by the government press office[www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html]. I ran a Factiva multi-decade newswire and newspaper (including Israeli English language newspapers) database search (which includes the Reuters and other newswires) and came up with no relevant (CORRECTION) about three hits for "israel news agency" or "israel internet news agency" as a source. Alexa ranking of over 233,561. [36] (Compare Haaretz ranking of 2,474[37], Jerusalem Post ranking of 2,189[38], Maariv ranking of 1,008[39]) Bwithh 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly oppose the suggestion to redirect. I've never seen ITIM referred to as "The Israel News Agency" - perhaps informally "Israel's News Agency" or "The Israeli News Agency", but never "The Israel News Agency". I'm afraid such a redirect would only create further confusion as readers encountering Leyden's criticism of Wikipedia search for his agency, and find the highly reputable ITIM instead. --User:Woggly 18:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Of course, I will defer to those more acquainted with the Israeli media, but I'm not making this up out of thin air. See for instance, this google search which includes an article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and article from Globes, a leading Israeli Hebrew language financial newspaper that both describe ITIM as "ITIM the Israel News Agency". There are also a few hits on the Factiva database including a report from China's Xinhua news agency, several articles from Israel Business Arena and a column in the Jerusalem Post which describe ITIM as "ITIM - the Israel News Agency" or simply "Israel News Agency (ITIM)". Factiva also shows the BBC as the original source for this March 2006 Israel Media Guide article here (unsourced and breaching copyright in this link), which uses the phrase "ITIM (Israel News Agency)". There also other references to ITIM as "Israeli News Agency (ITIM)" or variations on that[40]. Finally if ITIM was never widely known as the Israel News Agency, why does the Israel News Agency blog under afd discussion need a specific disclaimer saying that it is not ITIM?Bwithh 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure the name Israel News Agency was purposefully chosen precisely so as to to give the (false) impression that the INA is a central national and/or government service. In fact, ITIM is the only Israeli news agency of any significance. You've convinced me that ITIM has on occasion been referred to as "The Israel News Agency" - this is equivalent to calling The Boston Globe "The Boston Newspaper". My point is this: if the Wikipedia article Israel News Agency is made into a redirect to ITIM, it will end up looking as if ITIM is responsible for all the nonsense issuing from the INA. --woggly 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITIM was never the Israel News Agency. ITIM does not have an on-line or print news presence. ITIM is a media placement organization, not a news agency. According to the Israel Government Press Office there is only one Israel News Agency and that is the one for which Danny deleted after community consensus to keep. Karnei 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) User has made fewer than 40 contributions, most of which have to do with Joel Leyden and the Israel News Agency -woggly[reply]
Response Firstly, if ITIM was never the Israel News Agency, why does the Israel News Agency weblog need a specific formal disclaimer saying it is not ITIM? Secondly, ITIM is specifically intended to act as a news agency not "a media placement organization". See this article. Bwithh 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice (again). All the evidence I've seens says this is a one-man propaganda site masquerading as a news agency. Leyden's hysterical over-reaction to its previous deletion tells you everything you need to know about him. Just zis Guy you know? 18:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice (again). Notable and verifiable as far as blogs go. The Hebrew Wikipedia is less than 1/10th the size of its English big brother, so I hardly expect for them to pair up with us, even on subjects which may be of interest to Hebrew readers. This blog (or "news agency") is notable enough to be carried by Google News, and it is more than notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. If we really are being taken advantage of as Danny suggests, let us provide accurate and neutral coverage of it here. Silensor 18:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see why this should be notable. Google News includes a lot of blogs of mad hatters, being listed in google news is not relevant. bogdan 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is perfectly relevant to me. If I search for "Wikipedia" in Google News and turn up 15 hits linking back to the "Israel News Agency" I might want to hear what a neutral encyclopedia has to say about this firm. Silensor 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability, there is almost no 3rd party information to be had on the subject. Haukur 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep (see Comment below)per Haukurth. Let's see verifiably and reliably sourced notability cited in the article first. Crum375 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karnei and per previous AfDs. bbx 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the issue of sockpuppets - where's the beef? Where's the evidence? There is none. Even a check user has been performed and proved nothing. Karnei, or Lisa has revealed her personal details - far from being a sock. As for myself, I have spoken with Danny. He knows me and the academic organization I work for which works with Wikipedia Foundation. What we have here is "quilty by association" which must stop. We are not here to discredit Leyden but to establish, as has been proven many times in the past, is the INA notable. I would vote keep but according to a highly subjective standard here it would not be accepted. If someone created an account for the purpose of voting here that would be a different matter. Bonnieisrael 07:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blog like output about wikipedia indicates problems we are better off without for now. Should be blanked for a year and revisted then. Anyone with google can find truth data, so censorship from the public is not an issue. For now, no. WAS 4.250 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting is evil. Ignore ALL the votes and determine the result based on an unbiased evaluation of the arguments and evidence and logic. Who does that evaluation? Ahh! There's the rub! WAS 4.250 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I'm not convinced that Google News is any good indicator, I am convinced that the [www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html press credentials] and media sourcing is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first link is to the ina site itself, the 2nd is a brief mention of a contest about cartoons in JewishWeek, no real proof of notability. Crum375 20:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Israel News Agency in the cartoon article describes blog/googlebombing activism by the Israel News Agency, and not the professional activities of a news organization. Bwithh 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you know other places where Israeli press creds are posted, let me know. As for the second, we disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since any news organization that wants to work in Israel needs press creds, the posting of Israeli press credits for a news agency is about as meaningful as posting the phone number. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused then about #1. Why are you citing as proof of notability the ina site itself (www.israelnewsagency.com)? Am I missing something here? Crum375 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfDs. How many times do we need to have the same discussion? --Myles Long 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dunc|☺ 22:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and correct, as I voted already the last time. Remove Promotional content. Ensure WP:NPOV. Confirm provided references and sources --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have previously debated this here and the article survived. We debated it on DRV after user:Danny's out-of-process deletion and the article was restored. My reasons for inclusion are in the prvious AfDs. User:Danny should find another way to contribute to the project. --JJay 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I wasn't there, and haven't read the history, but if you had good reasons for inclusion, as you imply, I would assume they would include a showing of verifiable and reliably sourced notability in the article. If they were not in the article, you (or anyone else) would have inserted them there by now. As of this minute, I don't see any of them. Thanks, Crum375 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth my time to edit an article that is constantly being deleted out of process by User:Danny or other admins? Is it worth my time to edit any article given that they can be deleted at any time for no reason, or repeatedly renominated on afd? You can assume anything you want, but since you weren't there I would encourage you to read the previous AfD debates and DRV review concerning this article. Just so we're all on the same page. Thanks, --JJay 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for me personally, if instead of saying: "this was already argued and decided, I don't want to talk about it or improve the article" (my paraphrasing) you simply presented a couple of good reliable, verifiable sources of notability here, someone neutral like me would instantly support you and change the 'Delete' to 'Keep'. In fact I would insert your citations into the article myself for you if it's not worth your time. Crum375 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough is enough. We have already been through the process many times and the result has always been keep. Everyking 23:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep: Per above. Ombudsman 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please don't decide to "keep" simply because this has been discussed before. There may be things about this article and its subject you missed last time. As I've said, Leyden and his friends have done everything they could to make the INA seem more notable than it is, including tilting the AfDs and constantly repeating false information (such as claiming the INA reaches 60 million readers). There is a reason this keeps coming up. Danny's deletion may have been rash, but it seems more and more justified when I get the impression people want to keep this article just so we don't have to discuss this again. Please take the time to read the talk page of the article and the arguments of others before you decide to keep it out of hand. DejahThoris 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explain to me what is going on. The beginning of this AfD implies that User:Danny is the nominator, but in fact it is User:Geni. [41] User:Geni has also decided to prohibit users with fewer than 150 edits from participating fully in this discussion, not just semi-protecting the page but also moving their comments to the talk page instead [42]. The fact that there is no article about this news agency in the Hebrew Wikipedia, while not a point in the article's favor, should not be considered a significant negative either since the news agency publishes only in English. Anyway, the fact that the Israel News Agency is a Google News source is a reason we should have an article about it, since people may want an independent, neutral description of what kind of source it is. --Metropolitan90 23:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not deny any of this. I have done what I belive needs to be done in order to make sure that there can be no disspute as the the result. Whatever it is. If you wish to disspute the rightness of my actions I would rather we found a different venue for that debate.Geni 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out the criticism of User:Geni because I was not aware until just now that the article had been subjected to another out-of-process deletion by someone else before Geni's nomination. (I had been aware of the results of the previous AfDs and deletion reviews.) The rest of my comments stand as a reason why the article should be kept. --Metropolitan90 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Everyking. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and WP:V. We have no need to encourage spammers taking advantage of Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source that seems to imply any notabiliy for the INA is the INA itself. I would assume the reason behind Geni's action was that Leyden has sent many of his friends to the previous AfDs to vote to keep. I have been following this debacle for a while, and I have yet to see anything that suggests the INA is notable. I do not think being mentioned in small news sources because of an SEO stunt is sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. It's not surprising that Leyden has a Israeli press card, as everything he publishes has a distinctly pro-Israel slant. As for referring to it as "fully accredited by the Israel Government Press Office," a Google search of that phrase shows that it is being applied to only the INA. According to this article Israel has a list of more than 17,000 "accredited journalists." Leyden and his friends have consistently misrepresented the INA to attribute far more notability than it has. Non-profit "news agency" = blog. DejahThoris 00:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Danny. Also compare the recent precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination).--Eloquence* 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM, per nom and Bwithh. It's a blog. "It can't be a blog because we were started before the word was coined" is (paraphrased) Leyden's hysterical counter-argument. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to ITIM, per nom and Bwithh: reasoning per Calton, Dejah (well put), JoshuaZ, et al. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Fix it. Ensure NPOV. Remove promotional content. And the out of turn deletion by Danny was disgraceful. You may not like it, but deleting it because "this is tiresome" against the previous 2 AfD/VfD was just... not nice. ShaunES 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete A clear waste of our time. --Pilotguy (roger that) 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointless Danny is just going to delete it again regardless of the result, as shown by the previous AFDs and DRVs. Nevertheless I shall respond to some of the flawed points presented above.
I ran a Factiva multi-decade newswire and newspaper (including Israeli English language newspapers) database search (which includes the Reuters and other newswires) and came up with no relevant hits for "israel news agency" or "israel internet news agency".
You either a) suck at using factiva or b) are lying.
In this case, I was careless with Factiva, apologies. On a second run, I count three articles - one on the Jewish athletes , one about a diplomatic trip to the US and one on a road being named after an Israeli hero being sourced to the Israel News Agency Bwithh 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghitis, Frida (February 26, 2006). "The cartoon wars no laughing matter". Arkansas Democrat Gazette. p. 108. Document AKDG000020060227e22q0005q
  • "Israel has launched a prolonged military operation in the Gaza strip. A UN resolution condemning the action has been vetoed by the US, although Secretary of State Colin Powell said he hoped the offensive would be proportionate to the threat". New Zealand Herald. 9 October 2004. p. B09. Document NZHLD00020041008e0a90001r
  • Dorr Jr., Vic (August 13, 2005). "JEWISH ATHLETES FLOCK TO MACCABIAH GAMES". The Richmond Times-Dispatch. p. D-7. Document RCHD000020050816e18d00029
ITIM is sometimes called "the Israel News Agency".
This is true, but it is also true of Israel Resource News Agency. It is annoying, but not quite as annoying as "The Game" as a search term.
All the evidence I've seens[sic] says this is a one-man propaganda site masquerading as a news agency.
So he is just making up all of the other bylines? Sure, he writes most (maybe nearly all) of the stories, but not all of them (or he puts on the premise that there are multiple authors and no one has presented evidence to the contrary). See my comment on the second DRV for more information. We do cover notable propaganda organs though, so this isn't really a reason for deletion.
Violates WP:V.
Even if there were no third-party sources (which there are), it would still be verifiable by our standards because of WP:V#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves.
There isn't an article on the Hebrew wikipedia.
This is so specious that is does not deserve a response.
It isn't notable.
WP:WEB is our guideline for notability of websites and INA articles have been reprinted or used as sources by third parties so it at least meets that section. There has also been coverage of the SEO cartoons thing, so it could be at least merged into Google bombing or whatever.
Kotepho 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This whole thing seems rather suspicious, to be frank. DS 02:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if "has been a news source for Google News since 2002" can be verified. The Google News page indicates that there are only 4,500 such sources currently so IMO that shows a reasonable amount of attention. Whether there's an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia or whether the news source is generally known in one specific small country is not significant for our purposes here. Bryan 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google News is a search engine. INA is run by an experienced search-engine optimizer. It should therefore not be surprising that they manage to show up there. It is also worth pointing out that Google News has, at various times, indexed questionable "news sources" that look genuine on the surface. An example is OfficialWire, which was Google News indexed and is associated with a very dubious organization called "QuakeAID"; the newswire was also used to distribute Holocaust denial stories which ended up in the Google News index. Our article Google News also points out that they have accidentally indexed white supremacist content in the past. The problem with INA is that, aside from the direct results of their search-engine optimization and marketing, there is very little genuine reporting about INA that could form the basis of a coherent, verifiable article. It appears to me that the crusade of the site's creator is in part focused on establishing the very notability and recognition that it lacks, by gaining an entry in an online encyclopedia. This, in my opinion, weighs heavily in favor of deletion.--Eloquence*
      • Yes, and Wikipedia has an article about OfficialWire (covered as part of its affiliate QuakeAID). The Google News listing does not prove that Israel News Agency is a reliable news source, but it shows up in Google News searches alongside the Washington Post and New York Times, so it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to explain what INA is about. If we can verify that, despite its Google News listing, the INA devotes much of its content to reprints of information released by the Israeli government and op-ed pieces by its founder, it would be appropriate to state that in the article. (Also, I question the characterization of INA as a blog. It lacks several characteristics of the typical blog, like clear chronology of items, items linking other blogs, a blogroll, and comment space for each item. A blog doesn't need to have all of these, but INA has none of them as far as I can tell. It's true that much of it is a collection of opinionated commentaries, but it doesn't look much like a blog otherwise.) --Metropolitan90 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You wrote, If we can verify that, despite its Google News listing, the INA devotes much of its content to reprints of information released by the Israeli government and op-ed pieces by its founder - what would serve as verification? I've already sampled ten articles and shown just that: [43]; the one exception was, quite simply, an advertisement. I don't have the time or inclination to continue this line of analysis. What I can point to, is how much news the INA doesn't cover. In a country where radio news programs are updated by the half hour, updating a website once every couple of days - even if the updates were all genuine news reports, which they aren't - would not sustain a true news agency. There are unofficial Israeli news sites where one can be updated on news and rumours within minutes of events - not trustworthy reports, but timely. The INA is neither timely nor trustworthy. Take for example this story reported by the INA on [www.israelnewsagency.com/israeldefenseforcesnavyterrorism480516.html May 16] , as an event that occurred "earlier today". This story was copied from a government site where it had been posted on May 14, two days earlier. Here is a case where, by not being timely, and not bothering to proofread or update copy, the INA is in fact spreading false information. Is this not ample proof, in your eyes, that the INA is no news agency? --woggly 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • QuakeAID is notable for other reasons (though it's definitely borderline). I doubt an article about OfficialWire would survive on AfD on the grounds that it's been indexed by a search engine. Yes, Google News has put obscure websites (including, as noted, Holocaust denial and white supremacism) on equal footing with the NYT. That doesn't make them notable. As for whether it is a blog or a traditional website, I don't find the distinction relevant. The reason people call it a blog is because of articles [www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html like this], which begins with: " It all started with a divorced father in Israel who wanted more hours with his child. A dad who is a children's and father's rights activist... "--Eloquence* 09:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. There have been claims that being a Google News source makes this notable. It really doesn't, I use Google News quite regularly and it does spit out some strange sites for results, I've seen really trivial computer games newsites come back and at worst, forum posts. - Hahnchen 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bryan Derksen and Kotepho, this agency is notable. RFerreira 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a source for that? Come to think of it, do you have a source for it being a news agency by the usually understood definition? I checked the online verisons of some mainstream newspapers; I found lots of credits to Reuters but none to this. Do feel free show examples of this news agency being syndicated by respected news sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can call it whatever you wish, a news agency, a blog, the root of all evil, but the fact remains that it has been shown to be used as a source by major media outlets and is one of very few sites carried by Google News. It is either on the low end of the news agency spectrum, or the high end of the blogging spectrum, but either way it is still notable. RFerreira 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of this is that they were not so much used as a source, as pointed out as being wildly wrong. But there you go. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Stanfordandson 04:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Guettarda 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It just seems like a random news website to me, and I trust Danny's opinion on the matter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity blog run by some guy, read by no one. Rebecca 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering it's apparently one of the sites Google News spiders I find the claim that it's "read by no one" to be a bit dubious. Do you have any references to back that up? Bryan 08:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at the Alexa rank: "231,493". That means little traffic. Remember that this is a web-only "news agency", which is not even in the top 100,000! BTW, Alexa says its ratings are unreliable for sites beyond 100,000. bogdan 08:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the reasons the article is difficult to clean up into a decent NPOV stub, is that there virtually no independently verifiable information available about the INA. It is a one man show, and virtually every search leads back to that one man and his exhaustive efforts at self promotion. Unlike other Israeli operations, about which information can be found in Hebrew and translated, in the case of the INA there is far less information available on the agency in Hebrew than in English. In fact, no information whatsoever! I searched Google using the name as it appears on Leyden's scanned press-card: "ישראל - סוכנות ידיעות" gave 0 results as did "סוכנות ידיעות ישראל". Proving a negative is very difficult, and I don't know how to prove that the Israel News Agency is a non-entity, absolutely unheard of in Israel. I'd wager that a very high percentage of the traffic to the site comes from Wikipedians and members of the Wikipedia Review who visit trying to figure out what's going on. --woggly 07:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. And his hysterical over-reaction to the deletion of his own vanity article tell us all we need to know about what he wants from Wikipedia. This is blatant vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreation of deleted article. JFW | T@lk 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No verifiable evidence of notability that's not caused by SEO techniques. Tevildo 09:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the fact that a search engine picks it up is its claim to notability, then it really needs to go. More importantly, it's not doing so great with WP:V. GassyGuy 11:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity spam of NN org. —Pengo 13:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Google News. // Gargaj 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: evidence points to misuse of Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 13:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and protect against recreation until Reliable sources exist and article is verifiable. Article also appears to be WP:SPAM in that it's an advertisement masquerading as articles, as has been admitted on the actual website. (Why does the Israel News Agency desire to have a place on Wikipedia? Simply because Wikipedia has become the number one spammer on the Internet. And the Israel News Agency, whose mission since 1995 has been to disseminate news directly from the Israel Government Press Office and features from professional journalists in Israel needs to reach a global public. Even if it means using Wikipedia as a tool to educate the world public on current events in Israel.[www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacorruptioncensorshipisraelnews480710.html]). Article in it's current state fails WP:WEB as This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. [Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.] Article does not give an in-line or external reference to a third party reliable source that is independent of the site and has written non-trivial works that focus upon the site. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: We don't need to de-link URLs here; all external links on non-article pages already have rel=nofollow applied, which means they won't contribute to search engine rankings. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Garion96 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gamaliel 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable propaganda organ which has been cited by The Register and The Washington Post, and is carried by Google News, and ensure a neutral point of view through editing. Yamaguchi先生 18:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kotepho.Comment I'm disturbed by the actions on both sides of this debate. Wikipedia spamming and sockpuppetry are both deeply counterproductive, create more work for editors, and generally disrupt the encyclopedia to no good end. At the same time, Danny's out-of-process deletion of both this and Joel Leyden smack of someone who thinks he knows better than the community, and I find that deeply disturbing for someone who wields power limited only by the Board (in other words, essentially unlimited.) Geni should be commended, though, for a logical and necessary semi-protection of this debate, given the previous behavior of those surrounding this. I think WP:WEB is overly vague, but as far as I am able to discern, this qualifies. Assuming this deletion fails, I recommend the debate be moved there for further refinement of that guideline. I would personally support tightening the guideline and citing specifically the number of republications required and the notability those publications should have. For example, I don't think that Kotepho's blog roundups should qualify. Nevertheless, I believe they do qualify under the current (vague) guidelines.--MikeJ9919 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The only two blogs I even mentionare the story from Newswireless.net, but that was reprinted by The Register and the one from one of The Washington Post's blog done by a staff writer. I specifically avoided average blogs as I would never consider them a source for anything in a serious article. Kotepho 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just added this[44] link to the article, which shows the INA being referenced on The Register in the UK. To me that shows reliably sourced notability, but I would like to hear from others. I voted Delete above, but will switch to Keep unless someone explains why this link does not show verifiable notability. Thanks, Crum375 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please add this recent washington post quotation as well. But watch out: you are starting to shed your "neutrality". --JJay 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean show my neutrality - I accept. Just changed my vote to Keep. Those 2 links are good enough for me, unless someone comes up with a really good explanation how they don't show verifiable notability. Crum375 23:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link is not from the Washington Post, it's from the Washington Post blog. While written by a staff writer, it seems to be a "cast a wide net and find out what people are writing" piece, not subject to general journalistic standards. In my opinion, the Register's little better than a tabloid. The Tampa Bay Primer Kotepho lists is by no means an unbiased journalistic publication. That leaves 4 links of those listed by Kotepho which are, in my opinion, completely valid. Even college newspapers produce many, many more articles meeting journalistic standards. In my mind, the question is whether this should be decided by WP:WEB. I mean, this organization purports to be a news agency. Shouldn't it be judged as one? Unfortunately, we have no notability guidelines for those (though there appears to be a proposed one for US broadcasters.) Actually, in that light, I can't justify calling this a news agency, and I'm changing my Keep to a Comment.--MikeJ9919 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's the blog section of the WashPost url (though not in title), but as you say it is a staff writer. My test with this and the Guardian is not their reliability as fact vetters per se - it is their circulation, which I assume is fairly wide, combined, and hence we achieve notability for the subject. Now, whether INA is a bona-fide news agency is another issue - I don't know if we have enough evidence for that, and in general the present article may need serious NPOVing and verifiable sourcing for its various claims. But for me step 1 is notability and we have it. Step 2 would be to present sourced facts about what it really is. Crum375 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to MikeJ9919, the Washington Post is a major newspaper. If they are going to pay their staff reporters to do web-based news round-ups, for publication on their website, and the Israel News Agency is put on the same footing with Al-Ahram Weekly, Gulf News, The Guardian, The Independent, blogger Juan Cole, and the Middle East Times, then we need this article. I don't live in an area where the Washington Post or NY Times is available in print. Like millions of people, I read their websites. If they are quoting from a news source, then we should have an article on that news source. If this is a news source that influences thinking at the Washington Post, then our readers should be informed. --JJay 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:WEB, Criteria for web content: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I don't understand how being quoted in a couple of news stories (one in a blog section) meets this criteria. Also from WP:WEB "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Nothing you're linking to focuses on the INA, it just mentions it. Has anyone found any independent parties that have, in fact, written about the Israel News Agency itself, as opposed to it simply quoting it? DejahThoris 01:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and it is obviously in conflict with itself, because the note you quote conflicts with the main criterion. You cannot have an explanatory note at the bottom contradicting the main criterion presented in the body of a stable guideline or policy. But I think you need to take a step back and ask: do we have notability here? Well, if you are cited by the Washington Post right alongside Al Ahram[45], that to me shows notability. The Wash Post online (the root of this url is the Wash Post main site) has a huge reach, and this is clear notability. The issue of whether INA is a bona fide news agency or a part time one-man show is secondary IMO, to be addressed after notability is established. Crum375 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa traffic rankings:
  • Al-Ahram Weekly, 420-
  • Gulf News, 6,729-
  • The Guardian, 294-
  • The Independent, 1,684-
  • JuanCole.com, 21,457-
  • The Middle East Times, 76,022-
  • The Israel News Agency, 231,493.
  • I know Alexa rankings are innacurate, but I think they do provide some basis for comparing the traffic various sites get. I don't think the INA is exactly on the "same footing" as these other organizations. I also don't understand what you are saying about WP:WEB contradicting itself. From the "Criteria for web content" section, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Please show me sources where the INA itself is the subject of works whose source is independent of the site itself. Or are you saying that since WP:WEB is merely a guideline we should ignore it to save this particular article? DejahThoris 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the contradiction in WP:WEB as I see it:
  1. In "Criteria for Web content" is says, as you quote, that the entry in question must be "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Well, WashPost/Guardian are idependent of INA, 2 is 'multiple', both news articles there are 'non-trivial' published works and INA is 'a subject' (note the preposition 'a' - not the subject - this is a critical distinction for later)
  2. In the same major item, a sub-item states: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]" - I think you will concede that a published report on the Wash Post online and Guardian online meet that criterion, as 'newspaper' nowadays includes the electronic version and in any case it would fall under 'reliable published works in all forms'.
  3. Now we come to the contradiction. In the Notes section, well after the Criteria section, even past See also, we have a list of examples/clarifications/refinements called 'notes', where one of those 'notes' states, as was also quoted above: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Note the final focus upon it part. That IMO contradicts the main inclusion criteria section where it says that the item in question must be a subject of the published work, not the subject. I think that in a case of contradiction like this in a guideline, I would assume the main section trumps a note at the end. Of course logic is on our side also: imagine 2 people X and Y invent something important. They get written up everywhere, but always in the same article. If we were to take the footnote version as our inclusion criterion, X and Y would never get their own WP articles, since they were always mentioned together. That's not logical obviously and should be fixed in the guideline.
Now as far as the ratings of Al Ahram vs. INA - I never implied that INA is as well known as Al Ahram, my point is simply that if a reputable, widely distributed source quotes INA alongside Al Ahram, it gives INA notability, regardless of the Alexa ratings. And note that I switched from Delete to Keep, so I have no ax to grind - just trying my best to be neutral. Crum375 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're just reading the same sentence two different ways. I see "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." to mean:
  • "The content itself has been the subject..." That would be the INA. Has the INA been the subject? No. It was merely mentioned.
  • "...of multiple non-trivial published works..." I consider two quotes from INA stories in two papers (one of them in the blog section) to be fairly trivial.
  • "...whose source is independent of the site itself." How could the source of the work be independent of the site itself when the only mention of the site is a quote from it?
I would agree with you if both of the articles were about the INA, but all they're doing is quoting one small piece of an INA story. And considering the INA has been around since 1995 (according to... itself) having two quotes used is incredibly trivial. Eleven years, and that's the extent of the "published works" they've been the "subject" of? Nota-what? DejahThoris 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I agree with you that for 11 years worth of claimed existence it's not much, but the question is 'is it notable today or not' - not 'is it fast growing or not'. Now as to your 3 points, let me address them one by one:
  1. INA being 'the subject': I interpret that to mean as non exclusive subject. IOW, the Wash Post for instance, used the INA content alongside Al Ahram (in fact they are being contrasted, which is even more of a 'use' as opposed to just a listing of similar items), and I would make a case that in this type article, each of the used quotes are an essential and integral part of the article, hence they are a 'subject' that is being discussed there (per my X/Y example above).
  2. Non triviality: Again, at least in the Wash Post example it is being contrasted with Al Ahram, so it is not a 'trivial' mention, as would be the case if it were part of a list.
  3. Independent source: I think the meaning of the criterion you mention is to elimiate a situation where self-promotion, where the notability citation is on a site related to the web site we are evaluating for notability. I don't think the Guardian or the Wash Post are related to INA.
Again, look at the big picture: does this connote notability? Of course. How much? fairly large circulation/distribution/reach. Will readers remember the name INA or follow up its links and learn more about it? Some will, some won't. But you have to stay objective - it does give it a fairly wide audience.
Also, assume that these 2 publications do mention INA in the future (not unlikely). A curious reader (maybe one of many) does want to follow up and find out who in the world is this INA. Well if we delete the entry WP won't educate them any. All they'll have the INA web site itself (and Google-cached WP). Crum375 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One minor clarification: My reading of WP:WEB is that the 'subject' of the published article is the content of the Web site being evaluated for inclusion, not the company or individual(s) that run(s) that site. Crum375 00:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the INA (or the content of the INA) as being a source for the article, not the subject, or even a subject. I also see the WP:WEB criteria as being there so we could be assured of having sources for a Wikipedia article (which would require the INA to be the subject of the article). Otherwise, how will we write an article? "The INA was once quoted in the Washington Post blog?" The article tells us nothing really about the INA. DejahThoris 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375, rather than explain, I'll demonstrate. Can you find anything about the INA that is in the nature of this article about ITIM? I think that's the sort of thing Dejah is looking for. An independent outside source giving information ABOUT the agency, that also serves as testimony to the agency's role in the big picture. --woggly 06:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you we don't have a nice write-up about INA, like the ITIM article, which of course doesn't need it for notability in the first place, since it's already well established. The article by Wash Post is stated to be about the international online sources' view of recent events. As such, the mention of INA, with its opinion on the events, contrasted with Al Ahram's, is a part of the article and hence a part of the subject (though of course not the subject). I agree that this article is not focused on the INA content, and certainly not on INA as an entity. The point is simply that the citation there makes INA notable. The question is whether it is notable enough to meet WP requirements. The reason I say 'yes' is simply having seen lots of AfD votes on much more obscure organizations or persons that got kept, that had a fraction of INA's exposure. Crum375 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is notoriously inconsistent. You'll notice I haven't voted yet, I honestly have not yet fully made up my mind. But one thing is clear to me: IF the article stays, then I will hold the people who voted to keep it responsible for the truthfullness of the article. --woggly 13:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I certainly don't see it as a strong keep, but I try to vote on a binary basis. If it is kept, as you say we must ensure that it is factually accurate per WP:RS and WP:NPOV etc. Crum375 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Woggly. That's exactly the type of article I was talking about. Instead of a non-trivial write-up like that, we're talking about including what's basically a blog because it was a source for... a blog? Look at this another way, if you use Notability (organizations) instead, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." That's my issue- absolutely no "verifiable information from reliable third party sources." I believe that's the essence of what WP:WEB means, that we must have something to use to write the article. If we don't have something "...whose source is independent of the site itself," all we have to base the article on is the site itself. The site of a SEO spammer and PR man. DejahThoris 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As CaliEd has fewer than 100 edits, I've moved his Delete vote to the Talk page per the restrictions imposed on this AfD and previously applied to others. I'll leave a message on his Talk, as well.--MikeJ9919 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not a News Agency. Even as a Website or a Blog it is unknown in Israel. Noon 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term receives 67,200 exact results from Google. Sadly, Alexa's rank of 231,493 makes matters a little out of balance. What should we do with this page? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, it is sad that a few here chose to ignore 67,200 Google pages relating to the Israel News Agency. Google is accurate. One can actually check each and every page. Compared to Alexa which only provides ballpark figures. Also one must consider quality over quantity i.e. - The Register, The Washington Post, The Jerusalem Post, Google News and thousands of blogs that pick up from Google News. Israel is at war on two fronts today with terrorism. Israel and every free democracy needs the INA and other media which transmit direct feeds from their respective governments. If 67,200 Google results is not notable, what is? Bonnieisrael 14:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters is notable, ~159 million ghits. This is a one-man propaganda site run by a skilled SEO spammer. Just zis Guy you know? 13:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Hpaami has fewer than 50 edits, I've moved his Delete vote to the Talk page per the restrictions imposed on this AfD and previously applied to others. I'll leave a message on his Talk, as well.--MikeJ9919 15:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfDs. I feel this is an abuse of the process, keep nominating for deletion until you get the result you want.--RWR8189 18:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --tickle me 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ben Houston 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Delete Naconkantari 04:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit street gangs[edit]

listcruft and unsourced - if some of the more notable gangs' do, in fact, have a Detriot faction, that can simply be mentioned on their respective Wikipedia articles hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think such a thing can be sourced, and a more-complete article on the subject could be of some use. But if it's to be kept, it needs to be sourced, and right now it is severely lacking in that respect. I'd prefer to give the article some time to mature before consigning it to the dumps so soon, but if improvements aren't quick in coming I wouldn't object to seeing it back here again. HumbleGod 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if references are not provided, and some kind of perspective is not provided. We should have an article on Street gangs in Detroit before we have a naked list like this. Smerdis of Tlön 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think the list may help form an article like Street gangs in Detroit. I am maybe a little biased because of my personal familiarity with Detroit, but I think there are quite a number of gangs active (although the list is a little long and I suspect some of the names are BS) yet it can be very surpriisng how territorial they are. Plus when I go to a sporting event or something in Detroit, you see Cops wearing special "Gang Unit" vests. So I tried to clean the page up some, and hopefully it may actually prove to be a useful way to learn about these gangs. Although, like any article it should be adequately sourced with outside links, like th earticle i wrote on the Errol Flynns--Mikerussell 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is verifiably and reliably sourced.--Isotope23 16:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jaranda wat's sup 06:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable and product of OR. BlueValour 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Jeske[edit]

Non-notable, possibly also vanity article. Chrisd87 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Barely coherent. Little context and no sources. Author has deleted the AfD tag. Restored. --DarkAudit 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incoherent, not referenced, not notable.--Anthony.bradbury 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this speedyable? Wasn't entirely sure, so AFD-ed it. Chrisd87 18:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Might scrape an A1 or an A7, but AfD is indeed better for this sort of borderline case. Tevildo 22:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily-Rose[edit]

Spam chalicerae 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a purely promotional article, Lily-Rose more than likely posted herself. 'camemed'? SPAMSPAMSPAM! --chalicerae 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - possible speedy A7? Chrisd87 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea whether this is a notable porn star or not, but I'm always suspicious when a user ID is created for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion. Chalicerae has no edits except on this article and talk page, and none before an hour ago. Fan-1967 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really do have no idea Fan-1967, as I've been lurking for sometime only becoming active when seeing this garbage posted. --chalicerae 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just seemed odd. Some might suspect there was some connection. -- Fan-1967 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, we were both on the same site at one point in history. That's how I know about her. More recently, she can be found here. I applaud your use of Google though. -- chalicerae 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree she looks like she fails all the standards. The nomination just seemed, well, personal. Fan-1967 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete, after discounting anons, already has an category. Jaranda wat's sup 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians[edit]

Previously kept by default at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians, I keep coming back to this one. It is:

  • large
  • incomplete to an unknown and probably unknowable degree
  • may include entire religions with all their adherents
  • hence, unmaintainable
  • largely uncited
  • no better than a category would be
  • sometimes used to push a POV (e.g. Shakespeare, Hitler)
  • contains real and fictional characters mixed, always a bad idea
  • contains contemporary and historical characters in no kind of balance

I would suggest this should be replaced by categories for contemporary, fictional and historical vegetarians. Just zis Guy you know? 17:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are O. K., but real Wiki pages are much more fascinating.

Ohter countries also have their "List of vegetarians" Wikipedia Page!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.205.118 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006.

  • Don't change it!

The Wiki Page "List of vegetarians" is great as it is! I esp. like the many different categories and side categories! All these categories and side categories make the Wiki Page "List of vegetarians" different and special from other "Lists of vegetarians" that you can find on the internet!

So, don't change it, it is really fascinating as it is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.205.92 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2006.

  • delete and create catagory as per nom. Chrisd87 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize per nom. Tevildo 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize, I don't see why the list should exist when a category would be satisfactory. Is there not already such a category? HumbleGod 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the various reasons stated in the nomination. This makes so much more sense as a category. (Also, Frankenstein's monster? Really?) ScottW 23:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create category per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise --- GWO
  • Why?!? new categories? The old ones are O.K. And who will sort all the names new?
  • Keep and Keep an eye on; the article is virtually unsourced and makes no distinction between people who may have changed from carnivorous to vegetarian status and vice versa. This should be distinguished or the article is meaningless: if I have a salad for lunch and another for dinner, have I been vegetarian that day? Carlossuarez46 20:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise per nom. --Ezeu 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it, many vegetarians love this list. And visit Wikipedia more often because of this list. Other countries also have a "List of vegetarians" on Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.46.204.236 (talk • contribs) 11 July 2006.
  • Delete redudant to category. Quotes should be transwikied to wikiquote or spun off into a seperate article is encyclopedic notability is asserted. Eluchil404 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To deal with those points in order, and bearing in mind the conventions of WP:CLS (which is a must-read on category vs list vs serial box issues):
    • large - could be split if necessary, there are several ways to do this (splitting lists is perfectly common)
    • incomplete to an unknown and probably unknowable degree - doesn't matter. Sometimes a selected list - even slightly arbitrarily selected - is more interesting. Look, if the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (okay, bad example, but bear with the logic) contains everything anybody had ever been recorded as saying there'd be no point reading it. It's fine for a list to be a work in progress, no different to any of our other articles.
    • may include entire religions with all their adherents - indeed, just stating the religion would save space without losing information. Indeed a link to the appropriate category could be provided.
    • hence, unmaintainable - there's a risk of it degrading, but I think once it's cleaned up, the periodic cull of unreferenced articles will keep it tidy enough. If needs be it can be split.
    • largely uncited - cleanup, not afd. Yes, needs culling to the barebones, but remember that (a) categories themselves don't have any citations and (b) articles will only give references for the vegetarianism of their subjects if you're very lucky! With most articles you're lucky to get a reference on anything, let alone something like that. The most straightforward place to find references about people's vegetarianism is probably a secondary reliable source list of vegetarians
    • no better than a category would be - no. Just no. There are things that this list is much worse at (categories stay up to date) but here are some things that this list does far better:
      • It's actually an article. You could print it out and show it to your vegetarian/meat-eating friends; you could take it for your bedtime reading. It's actually quite an interesting read! Why? Because when I see all those names in a category, I have no idea who they all are. In this article, there's some brief contextual details, which I for one found rather interesting.
      • It's sorted in quite a good way i.e. people who you would associate with one another appear quite near each other. The categories are only sorted alphabetically (other than the fact that there are subcategories for nationality). They're purely arranged you can find stuff. You'd have to be even more anal than I am to actually print out page after page of category listings for your bedtime reading. There's no context to it. (And as for the "associated" aspect, WP:CFD would break down in howls of laughter at the sight of Category:Vegetarians by occupation and subcats - that would be a ridiculous cross-cat in terms of our category system; yet on the other hand, it seems quite natural, indeed the way most books would do it, on a listings page.)
      • You can also check the references. Here of course, there's basically nothing, so you know straight away not to trust anything included so far :-) On the category system, you could load up a page of listings and find that only a couple of the articles actually had references for the vegetarianism - and that would only be after loading up and reading through 200 articles! That hardly makes verifiability a piece of cake; you're just left trusting that there's enough editors taking tender care of those articles.
    • sometimes used to push a POV (e.g. Shakespeare, Hitler) - the list's not inherently POV-pushing so that's a matter for cleanup, not AFD. It's also quite a neutral thing to report that Hitler was vegetarian - I'd be more worried to see a list of vegetarians that deliberately left him out as an "unrepresentative example" than one that put him in.
    • contains real and fictional characters mixed, always a bad idea - cleanup matter, not AFD. But good point nonetheless.
    • contains contemporary and historical characters in no kind of balance - cleanup matter, not AFD. Again a good point, though.
  • Basically, the thrust of the objection here is based on WP:CLS, which actually makes perfectly clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to a list, many of which have been listed (between JzG and myself) above. It's not a case of finding a "winner" but finding whether it's useful for them to sit side by side. As far as I can see, they may be useful complements to each other. (Suppose, for instance, you did want to source a claim about a person's vegetarianism in their article - this list would be a perfect place to check whether it's already covered by a general vegetarianism reference.) I'm not going to shy away from the fact that the list at the moment, while a rather interesting and definitely quite offbeat read, is basically substandard and shouldn't go anywhere near "magic 1.0", but most of these concerns are cleanup ones being used to bolster a one-side-of-the-argument-only CLS case. If this is deleted (and given its current shoddy state I can understand that) may I request that it be userfied in its final, pre-deletion state to User:TheGrappler/List of vegetarians? Once the organization, inclusion criteria, and most importantly the references get sorted, I can't see why the list shouldn't be put back in article space. There's no clear policy against such lists (in fact, it's closer to the reverse), and a well-referenced, humanly readable (rather than purely intended for "eyeball searching") list would have additional (not "alternative") benefits to the categories. TheGrappler 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem at all with that. My favourite kinds of lists are the ones which add something encyclopaedic beyond the bare list of names. Here one could have a group of people named by foo source as following certain diets, for example. There's lot that could be done with it. Starting with sourcing it and removing the possibility of ioncluding a third of the world's population ;-) Maybe people noted for advocacy? People who have publicly spoken out about vegetarianism or against the eating of meat? Something a bit more than "does not eat dead animal" anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see perfectly well the problems with the list in current form. At the moment, I'm too busy to commit personal resources to it but on the other hand, having seen it, I'd definitely like to over the next few weeks/months. If it does end up userfied at least it will give me chance to slash and burn with impunity... as anyone who has encountered me on WP:GAN or WP:FAC may be aware, I take sources and references seriously, and this list's in trouble at the moment, especially given the ambitious claims of pro-vegetarianism groups. Nevertheless, I still think it should be kept in article space so that other people can have a bash at knocking it into shape. TheGrappler 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete!. It can be optimized (as everything can be optimized). Imho, there is no reason to delete it. Alex ex 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a category, but this list currently includes more information than a category could. It may need to be improved, but I don't see why it should be deleted. --musicpvm 06:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorize - this is what caetgories are for. BlueValour 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to the band - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Edward Kocol[edit]

Delete. Non-notable person. About 1 google hit that references his role as composer. Fabricationary 06:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote, I declined CSD because he's a member of a supposedly notable band, Impaled (band). If this is true, and if the band meets WP:MUSIC, on which I have no opinion, he should be at very least merged. - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, per CrazyRussian.--Tdxiang 07:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Impaled (band). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not enough notable info to have his own article Fram 09:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—He is normally referred to as "Jason Kocol", which yields more Google hits. Ardric47 01:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Computerjoe's talk 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCP Group[edit]

Corporate spamvertising; article consists entirely of technobabble with no context. NawlinWiki 17:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network[edit]

nn Website. Spam.--Qgoo 17:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: The article is weak content-wise, but I definitely wouldn't say it's non-notable. It's well known among Anime fans. Google hits for "Anime News Network": 1,670,000. Alexa traffic ranking: 2,918. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable, I don't see where the nonotability you claim is from. 132.205.95.27 22:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, despite Google being inconclusive, this is a fairly notable site in the anime community. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coredesat, fairly notable within the anime realm. Yamaguchi先生 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wickning1 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable in the community. - Wickning1 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ANN is often used as a news source among the anime fan community. Their anime and manga encyclopedia is also heavily cited or linked to by anime articles on Wikipedia. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs re-write That this article is notable because it meets WP:WEB because the site was 1) involved in an internationally publicized dispute with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about a publication which defined all anime as "adult"-oriented entertainment. [46] 2) The editors of the site are affiliated with a notable print magazine on the same topic. The first fact should be included in the article. (First time I'm arguing to keep an article per WP:WEB.) Anime editors tend to like ANN and often cite it as a source for article. I do it myself. Baring that, this is still a notable website. --Kunzite 03:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very notable site, but it does need improvement. -- Ned Scott 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Protoculture Addicts. And the facts mentioned by Kunzite should be mentioned (the article content should give clues as to why it's notable). --GunnarRene 11:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. — Deckiller 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as A7. The JPStalk to me 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Neil[edit]

Delete as a non-notable student - fails WP:BIO. Gay Cdn 18:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for Speedy delete.--Andeh 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. My rationale for discounting some of the keep calls:

  • Comment 1 - I understand "pending verification" to mean "if sources are provided for the article", and throughout the AfD the article remained unsourced, thus the rationale behind the merge call is nullified.
  • Comment 2 - There were at least 5 days during the AfD to expand the article, yet after the AfD tag was placed on it, it wasn't touched a bit.
  • Comment 3 - due to lack of reasoning behind the call.

On the other hand, BlueValour pointed out a major problem with the article - it is unsourced, and hence original research. The article was not edited to remedy this. Hence I can only see 2 delete / 1 merge which is a consensus to delete. Kimchi.sg 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Parchezzi III[edit]

Delete appears to be a minor characture in the Hitman:Blood Money game - is not mentioned in that well documented article. Gay Cdn 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Reimann[edit]

Delete as no notability is offered or substaniated. He does sound like a well educated and involved but nothing is specifically notable. Gay Cdn 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete informal resume, no claim of notability, claims to be "researcher" but field of research is unclear, no clear if this person is an academic, but not not appear to meet WP:PROF test. Pete.Hurd 18:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. RandyWang (raves/rants) 06:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali_Daher[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Xyzzyplugh 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Vanity by "Funky Dude", per history. All information can be "confirmed" on Ali's own web site. Hmm... — RJH (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →LzyGenius 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BlueValour 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive list of Threats to Authentication Procedures and Data[edit]

Title says it all. A list containing no encyclopaedic content of any type Nuttah68 18:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete looks like the table of contents from someone's OR project, delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete - this is an original work, approximately 36 hours in the making, and the only known and comprehensive list of its kind in existence. It's not from anywhere else or any project (not sure what "OR project" means?). Cnd 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • do not delete - this is an original list, approximately 36 hours in the making, and the only known and comprehensive list of its kind in existence. It's not from anywhere else or any project - as my initial "Edit Summary" explained - this is valuable knowledge accumulated from decades of experience.
Hi Cnt, I do not wish to discourage you from discussing this further here, but please limit yourself to one delete or keep/do not delete vote-like contribution in these discussions. Discuss all you want, but quasi-vote just once. Pete.Hurd 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every item on this list already has on or more Wikipedia entries devoted to it - eg - [Trojan horse (computing)] - it is my intention to link every item in my list to the appropriate Wikipedia entry to ultimately create a master "table of contents" to which everyone can refer when they are investigating any one of these threats (in order to see where the individual threats fit into the "big picture")

This linkage will take substantial amounts of time (days) - but I beleive the end result will be a valuable resource for the world of computer security Cnd 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malware is item 1.1.2 in the list - there's 100 or so other things that are not Malware listed.

This is the point of this list - when people who are looking at Malware need to know anything about similar threats, this list is the only thing in existence that can show them what other things are potential problems, and how malware fits into the scheme of this topic.

Forgive me if I'm not following "delete prevention" protocol - I've not added a page before. Cnd 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do pages get assigned to categories? This belongs in "Computer security" Cnd 19:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from Wikipedia, post on Geocities or any other freely available website. Good list, wrong place. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. This is a very nice outline, though. If you decide to put it on the web, consider alerting people at sites with similar purposes of its existence. If they deem it appropriate, they can link to your site, and then it will be able to serve its purpose. Also, when it goes to its new location, consider linking to appropriate reference sites with further information about each of these things. Then the page can serve as a nice reference index for computer threats, which I think would be more useful to the general population than a list. GassyGuy 11:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks - useful info that should not be lost. BlueValour 02:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Abbotts[edit]

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Failed non-notable candidate. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed non-notable candidate. BlueValour 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back when you win a notable office. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. non-notable unsuccessful candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long precedent that candidates are not notable. David | Talk 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has stood in more than one election, has made a face for himself on the media, will probably be picked for a more winnable seat in future. I personally have no connections to him or the Lib Dems (I'm actually very anti-Lib-Dem), but I feel that as he has stood in more than one place, it will be useful for people investigating those election results to keep this article (something as a political anarak I seem to do very often). Sean | Talk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and as per Coredesat. Uncantabrigian 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge useful info into the by-election article and Delete - fails WP:BIO. "Will probably be picked for a more winnable seat" is crystal-balling. —Whouk (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate. He is also a sitting councillor. The inforation there now will be useful for future researchers user:nakedbatman
    • Comment Vote is from very new user with only thirteen edits on other pages, eleven of which on the page for the successful candidate and most of these edits bore a partisan POV trace. "Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate" is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major party candidate for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed non-notable candidate.Galloglass 2.00, 1 July 2006
  • Delete and do not recreate until he wins a notable political office. SM247My Talk 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People might be interested of the candidate who almost won the by-elections even after the by-elections. Besides, it has been suggested, that there will be a rerun because of certain irregularities, so in that case the article would need to be re-written again.--213.243.158.41 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nandesuka 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong-way elections[edit]

Poorly written and inherently POV article with a title that is a total neologism - the only Google hit for the term outside of Wikipedia is to RangeVoting.org, which is an advocacy site. Contested prod and prod2. Opabinia regalis 18:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum for Warren's sake, a more detailed description of the problems with this article:

  1. The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. The idea that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities.
  2. The text is biased. Wrong-way elections are "pathologies" and "alter history, presumably usually for the worse"?
  3. The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election, which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately.
  4. The mathematical properties of voting systems are already covered in the articles Voting system and Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances.

I have no objections to the suggested creation of a List of elections in which the winner received fewer votes than an opponent, but such an article would be able to retain so little from this one that I'd suggest deleting this and starting the new one afresh. Opabinia regalis 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--thank you for this addendum. Let me reply point by point. >The idea of a "wrong" winner of an election implies that one or more "right" winners exist, which is inherently biased. --So if I say that "wrong way Corrigan" flew across the Atlantic in the wrong direction (famous front page fact), then that was an inherently biased statement unacceptable for wikipedia? I don't follow this "logic." Also wikipedia itself does not agree with that logic since it has an article on him. > The idea that the "right" winner is defined as the one that "most of the populace would have preferred" is also biased, because some voting systems are explicitly designed to use other factors than plain majorities. --That is somewhat true if you want to quibble about irrelevant bull. But the reason I call that "irrelevant bull" is we do not actually need to get into the finer points - The fact is, in the examples in the 20-example table, it is pretty obvious to anybody who should have won and why. Also, I did not make this "definition" anyhow; you did. >The examples are poor. Other than the Gore-Bush election, which is adequately covered elsewhere, the only example is that of Allende. The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately. --I gave a table with about 20 different elections. You ignored it. I said I'd be happy to put it in the wikipedia article [rather than 1 click away], provided anybody could show me how. You ignored that. YES, the wikipedia has an article on the Gore-Bush election - but it did not say that it was an election which Condorcet, IRV, etc etc would have given it to Gore. By the way, the fact that is true, is not an "opinion", it is not "biased", it is agreed to by 100% of political scientists, it has been stated in at least half a dozen political science books and papers because everybody regards it as an excellent example, etc. >The article even admits that the sole source cited in this example uses its references inappropriately. --hello? I was not "admitting" that, I was "attacking" that source and "correcting" it. This makes twice so far you have attacked "me" when actually you have been attacking "something other than what I said." >The mathematical properties of voting systems are already covered in the articles Voting system and Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances. --yes, but those articles did not even try to answer the central question addressed here: how often do these problems occur in real elections and how big an effect do they have on history? --So I thank you for your feedback. I merely find it unjustified. -Warren Smith.

--uh, hi. I am a new wikipedia user and not very familiar with how to best do things. I also do not know what prod and prod2 and opabinia regalis are. But anyway, to respond to this criticism:

1. if you do not like the title, I would be happy to rename it, assuming you or anybody can think of a better title. I myself was not thrilled with the title but could not think of a better one. On the other hand if you cannot think of a better title I think that hould be regarded as an admission by you my title was optimal.

2. if you do not like the writing, again, improve the writing.

3. I dispute the claim this article either has a point of view (which I assume is what you mean by POV) or inherently has one. My claim instead is, it is an extremely important and interesting question how often different voting systems yield the wrong winner. There is no question this is a more interesting and important topic than a random wikipedia topic, as I proved by hitting the "random article" button 10 times. Also I know of at least two political science professors who told me they had not seen such a collection (as the table) before, and were glad it had been compiled at last. So it is worthy of inclusion.

Now you may say that the fact anybody was a "wrong" election winner is always an opinion... and while I guess I agree there is always some element of opinion or guesswork in there, in many cases it is pretty darn clear. The table the article hyperlinks at 

 http://www.rangevoting.org/FunnyElections.html

of about 20 wrong-winner elections, backs up every claim it makes with pretty solid evidence and while I suppose it is conceivable a few entries could be disputed by some devil's advocate, the vast bulk of them are surely correct. Incidentally, I would not object if this table were included directly in the article rather than hyperlinked, but I do not know how to do that.

I mean, you claiming that table is an "opinion" is like claiming the "Jim Crow" era in American politics is merely a "POV opinion" - maybe it did not really exist - and hence the wikipedia should not cover that topic. In fact, just about everything in political science would by that logic be excluded. So I can't agree on that.

4. rangevoting.org is an advocacy and EDUCATIONAL site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarrenDSmith (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Inherently POV article. To answer Warren's questions, "prod" means "Proposed for deletion" WP:PROD, and "prod2" means that proposal was endorsed by another editor. Tevildo 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Warren again. Hi, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to an attack which simply expresses an opinion with zero supporting evidence. I mean, am I supposed to do the same and then we just say "is! isnt't! is too!" for a while?

It is well accepted by 100% of political scientists, or at least 100% of all the ones I ever saw, that wrong way elections exist and are an important topic. I suppose you could say this is an opinion, in which case you dismiss statements 100% of all political scientists agree with, as not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, because they are "opinions."

To return to my Jim Crow example, it is well accepted Jim Crow laws were passed to disenfrachise blacks. Probably not as well accepted as the fact that wrong-way elections exist and are important, but well accepted. But these laws all were written in a way not mentioning "blacks" per se. Therefore that was only an "opinion"? Well, no.

Now one can cite a ton of statistics proving that after JC law passed, suddenly black voters and elected rep counts dropped like a rock, but, hey, there are a ton of statistics in the table in my article too, and you aren't paying any attention to them either, so I guess such statistics are considered by you irrelevant. The point I'm making is, I do not see why Jim Crow is accepted for wikipedia and Wrong-way elections is not. As far as I can see, the sole reason is your POV or unsupported opinion.

I also continue to suggest improving the writing or the title. I have seen wikip articles myself with poor writing, but I tried to improve it if so, rather than recommending it be deleted. That seems counterproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarrenDSmith (talk • contribs)

  • Comment try not to take the criticisms of the article personally, because some of them are valid. The statement "wrong winner" or variations of it are inherently POV; as a suggestion, the topic could be changed to something like "Elections where the winner received fewer votes than an opponent" or something of that nature. HumbleGod 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep The concept of "undesired" voting results and of the imperfectness of voting systems has been covered mathematically and deserves its own article. --Huon 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, keep, and rewrite per above. It's poorly written and POV (especially the name), but with a rewrite I think it could be an interesting and relevant article. HumbleGod 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Warren again. OK, a slightly different title would be 

  "Wrong way" elections.

The point is that by putting the quote marks in the title, it somehow is made clearer that the author is acknowledging that there is a certain amount of arbitraryness to the concept. It is kind of like newspapers using the word "alleged." Do you agree this is a superior title? if so, go ahead and change the title. (I do not know how to change titles myself.)

--I also did a certain amount of writing-improvement.


  • It's a decent article, but the entire concept that winning an election under the guidelines in place for that election produces the wrong result does not sit well with me. Weak delete and replace with the proposed list of elections in which an opponent of the winner has received more votes. Within that list, there could be a brief explanation of what electoral system/rules were in place for each example given that caused the winner to be the winner over the cited opponent. However, anything remotely implying that the result is "wrong" is pushing the POV that direct democracy is the "right" way, and that obviously will always be a debated opinion, not a fact. GassyGuy 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--response by WarrenSmith - hi, you are correct that the whole "wrong way election" concept I speak of, involves a valid winner under the rules of that election, whom we nevertheless contend is somehow wrong.

But you are confused in saying there are elections in which an opponent received more votes. Obviously if the rules were that the winner is the one with the most votes, then no such example exists under those rules. Furhter, I never argued in the article that "direct democracy is the right way" (nor even mentioned direct democracy) - you did that. So your entire comment is just ludicrous, makes no logical sense, and attacks something I never said (which makes the third time that has happened).

The problem, which "does not sit well with you" that somebody could be a wholy legitimate winner under the rules, but nevertheless the rules were flawed, is your real stumbling block. Suppose the rules are "no matter what the votes are, Adolf Hitler is elected." Then the election is carried out under those rules. Well, according to you, that was a wholy legitimate election under those rules and it is merely an "opinion" that Hitler maybe was a "wrong winner." But a more productive view would be, some election rules are less good than other rules, and that can cause problems, which we can document via 20 historical examples.

  • Delete - Poorly written, inherently biased article on a subject with better, balanced coverage elsewhere on Wikipedia. Adding quote marks to the title draws attention to the fact that the title is not an established expression, and requires clarification. If further coverage of the topic is required, it needs a more accessible title. This is not the place to popularise new expressions. Warren, your reference to 'wrong way' Corrigan fails on this count, if on no other - the term is well-established in reference to sailing and aeronautical feats, whereas in voting, it certainly isn't. AlexTiefling 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Look, I was reposnding to the attack which said the veyr use of "wrong way" implied bias unacceptable in wikipedia. The attack was not saying "wrong way" is unacceptable because it is not a common enough expression. I responded to the attack. Then you complained I should have responded to a different, not-stated, attack. But how could I do that?

But anyway, since you raise the point, "wrong way" is a very common expression. I do not think I am plunging into new incomprehensible territory with it. And so far nobody has proposed a better title.

  • Delete. The article is an argument - a thesis for (say) a political science paper. The citations are essentially to individual elections; the concept holding them together is more-or-less solely in the author's head. If the author wants to argue for or against Instant-runoff voting, for example, let him participate in editing those articles. Or, perhaps, take the matter to a political science journal. John Broughton 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original prodder, for all the reasons already mentioned. --Jamoche 04:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--This is not an "opinion", it is based on "facts".

And I was not explictly arguing against instant runoff voting, although the Chile 1970 and Peru 2006 elections bith are examples of its failure.

--Let us look at the big picture. 1. Wrong way elections are important and change history resulting sometimes in enormous changes. 2. they happen fairly frequently. So far, nobody here has disputed those things.

OK, given that this is an important and tolerably frequent phenomenon, which has considerably more effect on humanity than most wikipedia topics, and also given that nobody has compiled my big table of wrong winner elections before that I know of (although of course all the data was out there - I have merely compiled it which is exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to do), then it is irresponsible of wikipedia not to include it. By not including it, wikipedia does a disservice to humanity, and possibly causes thousands or even millions of more deaths. That is the downside of deleting it. OK, what is the downside of keeping it? Well, gee, it does not "sit well" with some people who just don't have the time to bother improving the article themselves, and who attack it for a bunch of things that it never said, and gee, the title seems a bit funny even though they can't think of a better one. Aaaah, big bummer.

OK, comparing the cost versus benefits, it seems to me, there is something to be said for keeping the article. I can't believe you guys don't have anything better to do with your time. 14:36, 11 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.114 (talk • contribs)

  • 'Comment - The preceding anonymous poster, who is presumably the main page author, does his case no favours with his liberal use of scare quotes, and his preposterous hyperbole in suggesting that Wikipedia will be responsible for thousands or millions of deaths. That claim, plausibility aside, promotes the same biased point of view as the article itself - namely, that there is a true and right path of history, which is distorted into a wrong version by disputed elections, unreasonable Wikipedia policies, and other such affronts to rightness. Too bad. AlexTiefling 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The anonymous poster above does not understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This essay has no place here. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. --Satori Son 17:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Look, you are going to have to be more clear than NOR NPOV. I repeat for the gazillionth time I do not understand your copious weird abbreviations. (This is WD Smith again). Now concerning the "scare quotes" and "preposterous hyperbole." Again, my critic seems to be missing the entire point of the article. Wrong way elections change history. In some cases those changes cause the deaths of thousands. Is my critic seriously disputing those facts? I shall assume not. (If he is, please give refutations election by election in order that you can be counter-refuted.)

Now given that is the case, my question is - should wikipedia make its readers aware of a phenomenon which changes history and causes the deaths of thousands or even millions? Or should it pretend the phenomenon does not exist and/or is not worthy of coverage?

I DID NOT say there is a right and wrong path of history. You did. I am very tired of being attacked for things I never said but the critic did say. This is at least the 4th time such an attack has happened. As far as I can see, in such cases the "bias" is in my critics' minds, but not in my article.

My article *did* make the incredibly far out opinionated statement that "presumably" in cases where the voting system delivers an election result contrary to what the voters wanted, that usually affects history for the worse.

If the critic wants, I am perfectly fine with putting in to the article (to null out that horribly opinionated statement) the claim that 

  This has been disputed.  Critic XXXX (name here) believes that voting 
  systems delivering results different
  from what the voters want, usually changes history for the better.

Then we can proceed.

However, since I doubt any such XXXX exists, and if so this will not happen, I guess the statement is undisputed and therefore not an "opinion."

What am I missing here? -wds (18:23, 11 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.114 (talk • contribs) )

  • Comment: First of all, these are not just "weird abbreviations": WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. They are active hyperlinks to the relevant Wikipedia official policies. If you click on them with your mouse, you can read them. Please do. Second, my purpose here is not to engage in a spirited debate in a futile attempt to convince you, personally, of my position. I am simply voicing my opinion to the Admin who will eventually make a decision as to whether this essay violates those polices, which I believe it does. I applaud your efforts and enthusiasm, but this is just not the proper forum for such an article. --Satori Son 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--hi (warren again) look. WPNOR stands for "original reserach." You are the first critic ever to complain my article was "original research" and (as appears to be usual with wikipedia critics) you cite zero examples. But I am rather surprised to learn that "looking up data in almanacs and reading newspapers" is "original research". It appears I've done a great deal of original research in my life without even knowing it. Golly.

Next, I am attacked for WPNPOV, which stands for neutral point of view, me supposedly not having one. Well, as usual, zero actual quotes from my article are presented to justify this accusation, where it can join the large number of accusations which actually do cite fake pseudo-quotes by me which, however, never existed.

I must say, I am not impressed by the quality of the know-it-alls at wikipedia based on all this.

I was just looking at 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002

which is another wrong-way election, by the way, and golly, sure looks a hell of a lot more opinionated than my article, but I do not see you objecting to it. Let's see. That article says Le Pen was "unexpected" (with no support), says it led to "serious discussions" (with no support), says Le Pen had "harsh rhetoric" (whatever that is) according to "many observers" (not one of which is actually named) and Chirac I see was "suspect".

Well, ok. Why is this fine, and mere mathematical facts as in my article, supported by a table of about 20 elections worth of data (i.e. way more facts) are somehow bad? Answer: that was written by one of you. I don't get it. As far as I can see, the idea is to try to divide the world into wikipedia "insiders" vs not, and then try to attack the outsiders perhaps because you don't have anything better to do? Anyway, I recommend as a startlingly original new policy, attacking articles by actually quoting them and saying what is wrong, and/or suggesting fixes.

  • Comment Warren, please sign your edits in the same way as other users, by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. As to your continued advocacy of your position: Nothing can be said to change history. You are promoting the biased (not to mention inaccurate) position that there is a true future history from which we are diverted by things like disputed elections. If you cannot understand why this is inaccurate, you may need to think again about what you mean by concepts like "history" and "future". History is the past. It is a record of things that happened, and an attempt to explain them. It is in no way altered by disputed elections, or by the fact that it records them. There is no right winner of an election; an election may be regarded as debatable because of overt or covert manipulation, or because it is specific to the use of a specific electoral method. What it is not is "wrong". Your article is an essay promoting the opposite of this point of view, and is irretrievably biased. And your claim that Wikipedia will cause thousands or millions of deaths by removing that article would make a fine illustration of what is meant by hyperbole. AlexTiefling 10:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Again you continue to attack a position I never have held, and never said. That makes at least the 5th time that has happened. What is the matter with simply quoting what I did say???

Now about my "hyperbole". OK, there are 2 claims here, and from them a conclusion:

1. wrong way elections alter history and can cause thousands of deaths. For example, Bush got elected not Gore even though the voters wanted Gore more both in the USA-wide and in Florida 2000. Gore claimed the Iraq war was a mistake and he would not have done it. The Iraq war directly and indirectly caused 100,000 deaths according to a study in The Lancet. OK. Note, I did NOT claim Bush was better, or Gore was better, or wars are wrong, or wars are right, or deaths are wrong, or history was untrue, and more generally I did NOT say 1000 other things I did not say. Let us stick to the facts and the things I did say. I'm saying this because I realize you really really like inventing things I never said.

2. Wikipedia is the world's largest and most widely read encyclopedia. It therefore follows that somebody might pay attention to an idea in wikipedia, and change a voting system, whereas, if wikipedia remained silent, they might not. For example, the Chileans have changed their voting system to now employ a top-2 runoff, whereas in the famous wrong-way 1970 election my article discussed, they did not do that. Actually, this improvement would not have sufficed to fix their 1970 problem, but thanks to the fact my wikipedia article was not around, they did not realize that. Also, thanks to the fact my wikipedia article was not around, the French also did not realize it, and therefore encountered (what the wikipedia article on the French 2000 election calls) an "unexpected" problem. If my article had been around, then it would not have been "unexpected" it would have been "predictable as a repeat of the Chilean 1970 events."

3. Combining (1) and (2) we come to the conclusion that Wikipedia, by having this article, may well prevent thousands of deaths.

Now. Was this "hyperbole"? If so, then you dispute either (1) or (2). Are you the first-ever person to dispute 1? Or do you instead believe Wikipedia is not widely read and has little effect on anybody? Which is it?

I am now signing off as Warren Smith by putting 4 tildes as you told me, despite the fact I see this whole attack on me was started by some anonymous coward who calls her or himself "opabinia regalis." But I guess you all have no sense of irony.69.123.66.114 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete As it stand the article is a deeply POV and OR essay. As Opabinia regalis points out most of this is covered elsewhere so there is no need to retain this article. Whether or not this article would save "thousands of lives" is not a relevant argument per wikipedia policy since Wikipedia is not a soapbox it is an encyclopedia. Eluchil404 07:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Warren, you've proved my point. There is no such thing as changing history. To rebut both your points above: 1) History records that George W Bush was the winner of the 2000 presidential election. History was not altered to say this; it has been true since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in 'Bush vs Gore'. We only have Gore's opinion as to how he would have acted had he been in power. Personally I trust him; but his view is just an opinion, and the Iraq war is a matter of historical fact. Nothing was changed or altered. 2) Wikipedia may be one of the largest encyclopedias, but it's surely not the most widely read, because relatively few people have the internet, compared to the numbers who can use 'Britannica' at public libraries, for example. Your claim that your article, had it existed, would have influenced entire nations to alter their voting systems, is astonishingly arrogant and frankly worrying. AlexTiefling 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I (Greg Wolfe) am wikpedia newbie so please forgive me if I do not follow the correct conventions in this comment. The article seems to be very interesting and useful to me. The criticism of others here seems to be destructive - focused on the need to delete the article for various (to me) marginal reasons. I would very much prefer to see the article and the information of Warren's chart remain in a perhaps editted form. Since none of the critics could come up with an improved title for the article, may I suggest "Examples of election results that would have had different results under different voting methods". The article could indicate what voting system was used and suggestions (& evidence) of how it would have turned out under an assortment of alternative voting methods (including range, approval, IRV). I follow several forums that discuss election methods and I can tell you that having ready references to to actual elections with results that arguably would have been different under different voting systems is extremely important and useful. GregWolfe 08:45, 13 July 2006 (PST)
Note - this comment was manually signed; it was actually posted by User:68.121.163.239. John Broughton 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--warren again. Glad to see my essay is "deeply POV and OR" but as usual for these attacks not a single example is given, and indeed all the attacks so far COMBINED have not given a single OR example. Why is it so hard? How am I to reply to attacks that are non-attacks? Yawn. Moving, on, I see that I am "rebutted" because "History records that George W Bush was the winner of the 2000 presidential election. History was not altered to say this". great. BUT (AND THIS MAKES THE SIXTH TIME this has happened) I never said history had recorded something different. I also never said history was altered. Therefore, these two sentences do not "rebut" me. I even told my critic not to make up things I did not say. I warned him. I continue to await with bated breath the day when this critic will actually quote me for real and attack something I actually said, as opposed to his own fantasies. By the way, since I consider attacks on articles without mentioning a single valid example, and repeatedly, even after being warned, also making up false fantasies, to be wikipedia "vandalism," I would like AlexTiefling to be expelled from wikipedia as a clear vandal. How do I go about making a formal complaint against this vandal? And oho, I see GregWolfe with a note of sanity. Yes, the man is exactly right. And unlike the vast majority of my critics he shows signs of knowing what he is talking about. How refreshing. cheerio - Warren Smith.69.123.66.114 02:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the phrase "alter history" is right in your article. Opabinia regalis 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Warren, go and read how Wikipedia defines vandalism. I have not touched your article. I have not altered your comments here, except to interpolate my own clearly labelled comments. You said, above, "1. Wrong way elections are important and change history resulting sometimes in enormous changes....So far, nobody here has disputed those things." - and later, "1. wrong way elections alter history and can cause thousands of deaths." So you clearly state that history is altered, contrary to your claim in your last comment. Your difficulty in sticking to the facts even about your own statements is not my problem. Please do not accuse me of vandalism and "making up false fantasies". AlexTiefling 09:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--(wds again) aha, I see your point. (So I retract my claim AlexT is a vandal, but I do wish he'd use actual quotes. Or anybody else. And I repeat that I never said Bush had not won and I never said history had recorded anything different.) Very well. I guess I was thrown by AlexT's claim that I claimed that either history did not record Bush won (my article said, quote, "Bush won") or that history was "altered" to say this.

Obviously any election alters history from what it would have been if the election had produced a different winner. But AlexT keeps attacking some goofy philosophy of his that supposedly is mine that history has "one true course" or something I never said. I really couldn't care less about his stupid philosophy that isn't mine anyhow.

Now to GregWolfe's suggestion of a new title, I like his title better in the sense it is more informative and also clearer. However it is worse in the sense it is not as short and snappy. So I would suggest Title: "Wrong way" elections of Wrong way elections or Wrong-way elections Subtitle: Examples of elections whose results would have differed under different voting methods or another possibility is Title: Method-dependent elections

I am now about to alter the article a bit to add some new sources and some new WW elections have been added to the table. -wds69.123.66.114 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 04:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtab Hussain[edit]

Delete as non-notable, fails WP:BIO - "an aspiring future ahead of him..." says volumes. Gay Cdn 18:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BIO Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, I can't tell if the National Football League (India) is fully professional or not but it is apparently India's premier domestic club competition (from All India Football Federation) and so its players are presumptively notable. Not that the article doean't need a rewrite. Eluchil404 07:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plays in "India's premier domestic club competition" as noted above. That would meet WP:BIO for footie players. The Mohun Bagan Athletic Club page didn't link to him because it had his surname as Hossain, but it does now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional, international footballers are inherently notable. BlueValour 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cotterell[edit]

Delete as not notable and also appears to be a vanity page. Gay Cdn 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. "hey everybody, look at me, I wrote a computer program. I'm special." big whoopie doo --Xrblsnggt 19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. Can't believe this sat for almost a year like that. Metros232 17:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was not even created by the person who's account was used to create it. The only plausable explanation is that someone went on my computer and used my account to create this aticle thinking it was a good idea. I guess I'm going to have to check and make sure my account hasn't been used in other places. I formally apologize. mepcotterell 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael todoran[edit]

Delete as a non-notable artist. The article claims his thesis is his most aclaimed art. Gay Cdn 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. HumbleGod 20:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability expressed in the article and only 45 hits on the Google test. Metros232 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. --Ezeu 04:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane seat maps[edit]

Blatant advertising, no context. Reads like a press release, not an encyclopaedia article. Chrisd87 19:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I made a lot of changes, thanks for the feedback.

--MVPZidane 22:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Improved since first listed, but still needs some work. All the references in the text to the company (LoveMySeat.com) need to go - a link to the website at the end in an "External Links" section will be enough - and, most importantly, the article needs to establish that this term is in general use - that it's not just specific to the one company. Tevildo 23:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looked an awful lot like an adverisement from lovemyseat, and as such I understand the nomination perfectly. I have rewritten the article completely though, and think that this is a pretty common accesory in airline travel, so keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, a vast imporvement, therefore withdraw nomination (if I'm allowed to do so) per Sjakkalle. --Chrisd87 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep following updates and withdrawal of nomination. Tevildo 09:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Barragan (executive)[edit]

  • Delete because the article is essentially nothing. The only information is that he was president of 1-800-Mattress and that he died recently. While he was an important figure for the company, it was actually his father who started the business. In my opinion, he's not notable enough to be put on the list of notable deaths-- personally, when I saw his name on the list, I had no idea who he was, and after reading that article, I wasn't much more informed. --Evan Carlstrom 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very short article on a not notable person --Xrblsnggt 19:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve article. I added him to the recent deaths after seeing reports of his death in the Boston Globe [47] and New York Times [48]. The New York Daily News claims that he helped build the family business 1-800-Mattress into the leading supplier of bedding in the US and the family into one of the wealthiest Hispanic families in the US. [49] There is enough verifiable material about him from reliable sources to indicate notability Capitalistroadster 21:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FWIW, this company is pretty well known, particularly in the New York metroplitan area. Also, his obituary made the Associated Press, so I believe he qualifies as notable. Mikemoto 21:35 9 July 20006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Many newspaper obituaries, even in major newspapers and newswires are not of encyclopedically notable people . I don;t see any claim to notability here aside from being in charge of 1-800-Mattress's expansion strategy, which I dont think qualifies for encyclopedic notability (are we going to have articles for every chief operating officer of medium sized companies ever?). Bwithh 01:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based upon my experience with the Brede Arkless article and Capitalistroadster. RFerreira 03:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, This has no possibility of being anything but a two sentence stub if it stays encyclopedic. FancyPants 07:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no notability whatsoever. (Pally01 11:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete the difference between this article and the one RFerria mentioned are that it has multiple sources and a claim to notability. Unless someone provides both, I don't see this article being any more than it is now. --djrobgordon 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Zerbey 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's expanded. I did some online research last night in hopes of starting an entry, and there's just no biographical info on the Web. I was surprised when I checked the "deaths" list today and saw that his name was no longer in red. Despite the dearth of bio info online, evidently he was in line to succeed his father at the mattress retailer. DL77 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company is notable. This executive is not. Flying Jazz 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Jokestress 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a very young, successful head of a business known world-wide who died unnaturally (untimely) at age 34. Merits remaining. Rosemary's Baby 06:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Dionyseus 08:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am sad for the guy and his family but there is no notability. The key point is that his father was still the CEO and Luis was still working for him. Had he been CEO then he would have been notable. As it is he is one of very many senior executives around. BlueValour 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Shaqspeare 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebates MoneyMaker[edit]

Written like a computer help article, and this is not one of the most commonly known (ad/spy/mal)-ware programs. Invitatious 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for non-notability and because it's SPAM --Xrblsnggt 19:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think it's spam, but it's still not a notable subject. Maybe the program could merit mention on a list of loyaltyware, if such a list existed, but it doesn't seem notable enough to merit its own article. HumbleGod 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefor minimal relevance and numerous errors.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of Agartala localities[edit]

Delete as WP is not for Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Gay Cdn 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the content with Agartala and delete. utcursch | talk 12:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topics are not loosely associated, but a list of localities is not suitable. We could need more context to find out which items merit a mention in Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with the subject? Punkmorten 00:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicates the Category which is designed for the job this list tries to do. BlueValour 01:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Sandstein 05:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 20:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangalore PIN[edit]

Delete as WP is not for Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics - including list of postal codes. Gay Cdn 19:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - we have a list of US zip codes and a list of zip codes in the Philippines, among others; this list seems to follow the format set by these articles. I'm not big on such lists being on WP, but they don't seem to violate WP:NOT (they aren't really loosely-associated topics at all). HumbleGod 19:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify. utcursch | talk 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my test is: would someone come here for these and I think not. They would go to the local mail site. BlueValour 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently moved to Bangalore and I came here to find out the pincode of my new address. --Chris Quackenbush 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wikify per HumbleGod. Sandstein 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep -- nae'blis (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis (name)[edit]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a genealogical society. Gay Cdn 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - I don't think this violates WP:NOT because it doesn't attempt to trace particular people; if anything, it's an onomastic article that IMO stands a chance of being a very good article. Human name articles are not uncommon on WP, and if any name qualifies for an article, I'd think this one does. It needs citations badly, but that can (hopefully) be fixed. HumbleGod 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above reasons, different that Kelsey AfD from what I can tell. Yanksox 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the name in question is not obscure, onomastic articles are useful and notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. JChap (Talk) 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HumbleGod; Wikipedia is not a genealogical society, but that part of WP:NOT was clearly meant to refer to entries on obscure people, not to valuable information on the history of certain names. EB and/or Encarta, if I remember correctly, have such coverage; why would we not cover at least the same topics, expanded and wikified? Captainktainer * Talk 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs rewriting. Danny Lilithborne 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has articles for almost every common first and last name. RFerreira 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reason given for deleting is irrelevant, because this has no strong connection to the kind of genealogy that Wikipedia isn't. Fg2 07:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gray Morning[edit]

Probable hoax & OR. No relevant google hits. Seems like the author came up with the play & has tried to publish it here. Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it was a real play, there is no diction that it is a major play or something that has been noted. Possible Wikidream. Yanksox 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article makes no case for its subject's notability. A google search for the title combined with both the protagonist's name and the district of Sharn turns up nothing in either case. And the editor's statement that it's by "an unknown playwright" helps nothing. Even if not a hoax, it certainly doesn't seem notable by any WP guideline. HumbleGod 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nonsense. Why are we discussing it?--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D514 HUB[edit]

Vanity page for a non notable bus Nuttah68 19:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Where would we be if every bus in the UK had its own article? Chrisd87 19:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chrisd87. HumbleGod 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Marotte[edit]

Delete as it fails WP:MUSIC. Also see the article's talk page for reasoning for all the edit tags. Gay Cdn 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if some of the info here could be sourced, that would be one thing. As it stands, she does seem to fail WP:MUSIC (I think the closest she comes is that she may have had a tour stopping in at least one major city, but this can't be verified). HumbleGod 20:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just 1 non-WP Ghit here. If she was notable then someone would have come out and said so. Is the 9 tags on this article a record? BlueValour 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Entry[edit]

Delete as these books are not notable - they are free e-published stories. Does this article, or the actual stories, belong on wikibooks? Gay Cdn 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, couldn't find anything on Google, and by definition they won't be on bookseller pages, so no verification there either. HumbleGod 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BlueValour 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey (name)[edit]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a genealogical society. Gay Cdn 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm going to take the first sentence and put it on the disambig page. Yanksox 20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis (name). Not as strong here since there isn't as much information and Kelsey is a significantly less common name. But the nomination reasons given for both definitely do not apply--as far as I can see, onomastic pages do not violate WP:NOT for genealogical reasons. HumbleGod 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Check out the Kelsey disambig page, I think it should work. Yanksox 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, Vote change: Weak Delete since it's not a particularly common name. But for now I stand by my belief that onomastic articles do not violate WP:NOT in and of themselves. HumbleGod 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, and out of curiousity I did a bunch of random names, and most of them list the name and etemology on the disamig page. Yanksox 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those articles should be fixed to link to Wiktionary for those. As per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles. Uncle G 00:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The etymology, translations, alternative spellings, homonyms, meanings of a word, be it a proper noun or otherwise, is dictionary territory. Uncle G 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the name in question is not obscure, onomastic articles are useful and notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. JChap (Talk) 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs rewriting. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Articles on given names have no essential connection to genealogy. Fg2 07:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains etymology and alternative spellings of a word, in this case a proper noun. It is a dictionary article, plain and simple, mis-placed in the wrong project. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames, this content belongs at wikt:Kelsey, cross-linked from Kelsey to employ Wikipedia and Wiktionary in tandem, just as we have done, and continue to do, with other name disambiguation articles. Delete. Uncle G 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a dictionary entry, suited to Wiktionary but not here. BlueValour 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G, dic def Jaranda wat's sup 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Uncle G said. I'm not sure exactly what he's saying -- he said Delete, but also Wikify to Wiktionary, but also Keep as a crosslink to Wiktionary... it all sounds kind of consfusing but doing all three of these makes sense, if that's an option. Herostratus 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 04:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Summer Ever[edit]

I'm not quite sure what it is - hoax? Neologism? But in any case it's probably not verifiable, and even if it could be sourced, it would still not be encyclopedic. In addition, the one page linking to it, Best Week Ever, seems to mean something completely different than the article describes. Thus, rewrite completely or delete. --Huon 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 300 (number). It's so nice to see a well discussed AFD with actual policies being referenced. Good work all! Proto::type 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

330 (number)[edit]

  • I sugggest this article being deleted as not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE There is no content or anything to show that the number 330 is notable. Ryulong 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above - won't waste more words on it. KarenAnn 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A wholly pointless article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300 My fisrt instinct was that the author is probly trying to make the WP:POINT that their shouldn't be any articles on numbers at all, hoping to create a slippery slope that will lead to teh deletion of number articles like 47, 163, 1729, etc. According to WP:NUM#Before creating a new article, the author shold've looked at 300 (number) to see if it said anything about 330. Next, he or she should've tried to see if e could round up three interesting properties. WP:1729 is one proposed yardstick of whats an intersting prop, with the scoring as follows:
meaning theres two interesting mathmatical properties. In hte absence of a third as expected by WP:NUM, I'm voting a weak delete. Numerao 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your careful consideration is very much appreciated. Anton Mravcek 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I looked on Friedman's "What's special about this number?" For 330 it just says 11C4, which I don't find that special, but I haven't run that through the WP:1729 questionnaire yet.[reply]
        • compositefan points out that 330 is in Pascals triangel, and not just at row 330 column 2. I haven't put this particular tidbit thru the WP:1729 questionaire yet eihter. Numerao 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what your vote is trying to say, if anything at all. -- Kicking222 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm saying is taht I considered my vote very very carefully, that I din't just say "delete" for the heck of it. Numerao 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep I think 330 has just enough interesting properties shown in the article to warrant inclusion, but I could almost go either way. Maybe the piece of golf trivia barely pushes my vote into "keep" territory. -- Kicking222 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300 (number), where it is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. (For what it's worth, if kept, the box would have to be deleted and recreated from scratch. There's more wrong than right, there.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300 (number) per RJH.  --LambiamTalk 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Still better than nothing.--Taida 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300 (number)#330s. As far as I can tell, 330 has just two interesting mathematical properties and WP:NUM suggests at least three are needed for a number to merit its own article. Anton Mravcek 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 330 is pentagonal and pentatope, and appears in Pascal's triangle at 11, 5 (and of course 330, 2). CompositeFan 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300. PrimeFan 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 300. I don't think the various properties add up WP:NUM. Eluchil404 07:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was MERGE into Animorphs. Herostratus 19:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ketran terminology[edit]

Delete as it is basiclly a glossory for a fictional universe. Gay Cdn 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kick the Can Crew[edit]

Delete as it fails to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Gay Cdn 19:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Did you research this before nominating it? 348,000 Google hits. The article itself states their television appearences. It needs citations, clean-up, expansion, etc., but not deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not the duty of AfD nominators to reserach notability (as the WP:LAZY attack page mistakenly implies); please see WP:MUSIC on who must document notability. Weregerbil 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you unwilling to admit that a minute's worth of research is not only a more efficient use of time, but more in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? PT (s-s-s-s) 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • ???? I'm not sure where you get "unwilling to admit". I'm simply reading WP:MUSIC and mentioning what it says. The uncivil name-calling article you cite is simply wrong. Please read WP:MUSIC. Weregerbil 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have read WP:MUSIC. Since you have, too, you should know that this group fulfills multiple criteria in the guideline. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC for lacking non-trivial third-party articles, no evidence of national tours, or charted records. My check of Google was admittedly complicated by many Japanese language hits, but the English sites were mainly catalog listings with occasional blogs. I would be willing to defer to anyone with a better translator than I have, though. Tychocat 10:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is an obvious decision.
In Japan, the pop hits are tracked on the Oricon Charts. Kick The Can Crew's "Magic Number" album was #2 during the week of January 20, 2003. It finished the year at 16 on the Top 20 Album chart. 2003 Oricon Top 20 Albums Searching the Oricon site gets 140 hits. [50]
This is their artist page at the research/tracking part of the Oricon site: [51]. It links to the sales and charting information for their singles and albums. Most of the albums have been in the top twenty for at least a few weeks.
I think there's no question that this band meets notability requirements. Note that they have to meet only one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC, not all of them. Of the 380,000 google hits, surely one or two are non-trivial third-party media coverage.
Was this nomination made in bad faith?
-- Mikeblas 04:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. Weregerbil 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have updated the article and provide citations for notability. I am asking my fellow editors here to change their votes to keep and for the editor who nominated the article for deletion to withdraw that nomination. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As requested here and on my talk page, I have reviewed the changes you have made to the article. I think it appears cleaner, but I still do not see how it meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The main contributor to the group won battle of the bands -- that would be notable if we were talking about an article on him. The television appearences may lead to nobility, but as it stands there are no specifics - ie what channel and in what role - and nothing is verified by any links. You asked me to comment, in my opinion nothing has changed, nobility wise, with the article so there is no change to my nomination; I will not be withdrawing it.--Gay Cdn 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you looked at the link provided at the bottom, so I took an extra step and added some of its content to the article. Multiple major label album releases and hit singles, appearences on notable international television... are we done yet? PT (s-s-s-s) 03:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added chart information (with a cite). I have also provided a link to the band's Japanese language website, and a "see also" to the Oricon 2003 article here on Wikipedia, and fixed that article to link back to this article. (The chart article had a casing problem: "the" instead of "The".) I've also added a link to the band's page at their record label page. Their record label is Warner Group Japan, which is a major label. -- Mikeblas 05:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to point all editors here to WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. I will tell everyone that this article was nominated in good faith. Anyone looking to question my good-faithfulness, should review the article as nominated rather then as it currently stands. I now leave it to an admin to review the article and comments and determine an appropirate course of action. --Gay Cdn 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish to point out that it is within your power as an editor and within reason for you to withdraw your nomination once the reasons for it have been refuted. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. --Gay Cdn 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now documented to probably meet WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 05:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim shego[edit]

While a gay themed Disney cartoon would be great, delete this as WP:OR. Gay Cdn 20:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, maybe merge any relevant text into Kim Possible if citations can be found. HumbleGod 20:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally speculative fancruft. JChap (Talk) 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If anyone wants to merge it somewhere, merge it to Femslash rather than Kim Possible as it is more an example of fan fiction than a characteristic of the actual television series. --Metropolitan90 23:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fancrufty garbage. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, bye-bye now. RFerreira 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was USERFY. Herostratus 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimiyoshi Suzuki[edit]

Delete as what appears to be WP:OR; a suggestion on the article's talk page is that it could be moved to wikisource. Gay Cdn 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kuczera[edit]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a genealogical society Gay Cdn 20:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, apparently not a notable name. Author's username is Kuczera as well, so WP:VAIN probably applies as well. HumbleGod 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JChap (Talk) 21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kilminster[edit]

Okay, people. Please listen carefully: this article is in a dreadful, dreadful, self-inflicted-by-the-author-who-is-the-subject state. That is not why it is here. Articles such as this can be cleaned up. This article is here to establish whether it is worth doing so: is the subject notable or not? There's an assertion of notability of sorts right at the bottom. Please judge whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any use to man or beast. Thanks. No opinion is being stated by me - I just want to know whether this is worth me cleaning up, watching and looking after or not :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but clean up, the POV stuff at the top is annoying and violates WP:NOT, but I think he makes it by WP:MUSIC. Ditch the junk and expand upon the stuff at the bottom. HumbleGod 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: The cleaned up version is much easier to swallow. Could still use some citations, but looks like it squeaks past WP:MUSIC. HumbleGod 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am concerned by the notation with respect to copyright and editing at the top of the article. Does this mean that copyright permission is granted only so long as nobody edits the article without contacting him? This is unacceptable at a wiki. If the article is kept (and it does seem to just meet WP:MUSIC) the notice limiting editing needs to go. JChap (Talk) 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The denial of permission to edit superscedes any notability the subject may have. Deletion and starting from scratch is the only way to go. --DarkAudit 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly the copyrighted material, which is obviously not being released under GFDL, has to go. And, from the remaining bit of genuine text at the bottom, he seems to be little more than a session musician - thousands of them out there, none of whom have entries here. Tevildo 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guitarist of the Year from a prominent magazine pretty much passes WP:MUSIC. --DarkAudit 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with blanking of everything except the Wikipedia-esque bio on the bottom of the page, then find a way to reintegrate the content above it. I'd be willing to do this, but I want to wait for opinions of my plan first. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep contingent on the fact that the anon who keeps reverting the article to a terrible state by including his material can be silenced. It passes WP:MUSIC and is definatly notable, but if you try to remove this person's material (like I did), they just restore it. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contact subject of article at [email protected], as it says in the "there are NO copyright violations on this page" notice, and make sure they understood the "You agree to license all submissions under the GFDL" and "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" notices which are visible every time you edit. Also keep. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The part that was copyrighted was the part that I have since eliminated because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm sure he did understand this. That was the reason for the disclaimer. JChap (Talk) 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep becouse he's undoubtedly notable. I put there wikify - cleanup on 1st July, before me, none had ever noticed the mess in this article. I will restore some of the content that has been lost in a proper manner (just a few sentences). --Doktor Who 03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability by satisfying WP:MUSIC, salute to Messedrocker for being bold in removing the text. Yanksox 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the guy seems notable, and the article looks nice and clean now.--Konstable 10:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per A7.

Larkism[edit]

Non-notable hoax club. 17 Google results. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine club (as stated exclusive) but has little publicity. Members of the club do not wish use the internet to provide information and therefore cannot be found on google. 82.21.222.116 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax (the whole Titanic necklace bit? Sorry, but give me a break), non-notable, probably violates WP:VAIN. HumbleGod 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse Me! i have Actually seen the "New Hall." It is in a place called Knightley Estate one Of Christopher Js Private Property
I was Invited there On a school re-union, And i saw a door marked New hall on my search For a toilet. Upon Looking inside i saw a huge banner saying "LEMC Meeting"
I did some research communticating with old school friends, i have even talked to a member inside the club and he has verified all the information asking me to write this article so the club gets a little more attention since the numbers of the clubs members has fallen, due to memberes migrating.
Obviously You would have to be linked to such an article as who would search for larkism? Therefore the club is still Remaining exclusive but attracting just that little more attention to keep it going.
Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if the article isn't entirely a hoax (and you have to admit some parts are unlikely, again see the bit on the Titanic necklace), it still fails to make a case for the subject's notability and still violates WP:VAIN. Your above statement itself verifies both of these things. HumbleGod 21:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the arguments for keeping the article to be notable and significant in proving a point and have therefore removed the deletion notice. 82.21.222.116 21:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment AfD blanked and AfD tag removed by the above user. Closing AfD's is an admin-only function - please don't do this again. Thanks. Tevildo 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that the part about the titanic necklace is not entirerly believable. but i have heard this from my friend inside the LEMC, i must tell You this is a rumour In th LEMC. Hence Why it has been put in the trivia area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)
  • The titanic neclace shall be described as "rumoured". The rest of the article may not be seen as vain as it describes an unusual organisation and one which could be seen as interesting and notable. 82.21.222.116 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please establish its notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Omicronpersei - there are no other organizations in Hertfordshire, or possibly in the UK for that matter, where wealthiness is compulsary to join the club and the club is purely based on wealth. This organization is also discriminive to the less fortunate, therefore Larkism is very notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.222.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This doesn't cut it either; any facts or rumors must have citable sources behind them. If something cannot be proven through an additional verifiable source (reputable website, published works, etc), then changing the wording makes no difference. As for notability, the article itself doesn't make the case that the organization is notable for any particular reason. And this is separate from WP:VAIN. HumbleGod 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The LEMC does not currently have a website, but is looking to in the near future. They have published some of their own works, however the book "the LEMC years" is no longer available as it was not selling well and therefore it was seen as economical to stop printing it. 82.21.222.116 21:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that sources cannot be found is not an excuse to include information without sourcing it. This violates Wikipedia guidelines, and any such information should be removed. And at any rate, the fact that no websites or books could allude to it except "official" ones says a lot about the organization's lack of notability. HumbleGod 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable club. -- Gogo Dodo 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AS i have said before the LEMC wants to reamin somewhat exclusive, not advertising itself to much the LEMC council decided this was the best way to inform potential members of the club about the LEMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)
So it's a secret club that the members don't want anyone to know about, and people don't seem to want to read about it. Why again does it deserve an encyclopedia article? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It is an article about a group of people/club that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Meets CSD A7 as far as I'm concerned. Failing that, its a hoax. Kevin_b_er 21:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LEMC is not using Wikipedia to advertise at all it is usuing purely as an information source for potential members. The LEMC does not advertitise. If it did it would somewhat destroys its reputation as AN EXCLUSIVE MEMBERS CLUB. All potiential Members are handpicked by Christopher J84.67.41.75 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Spoken to my friend in the LEMC and he has told me that Chritopher has spoken in light of what has been said on this page. The LEMC will never use Wikipedia as an information source again, And any donations even considered being given to the wikipedia fund will be Deleted. The LEMC is a real Club, and You people Have Insulted All members Of the LEMC.

When The LEMC have set up their website It will be the primary source of information to potential members it will also encourage visitors to stop using wikipedia and stop donating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Nothing like threats to make you want to keep an article. NawlinWiki 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lemc would like to apologise for its inopropriate behaviour, it told the information team to by all means possible to show wikipedia that the LEMC exists. The previous posts were not outes from the LEMC but infact made up by the Information Team. Many Apologies THE LEMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Apology accepted, although it's interesting that the apology came from the same anonymous user who made the threat. In any case, we can't just take your word that the organization exists. You must give verifiable sources (ones we can check ourselves), and they must show that the organization is notable (widely known by people other than its members). Even if the club exists and was not something you and your friends just made up, and even if it is really full of rich people, it won't get a listing unless its notability can be verified. NawlinWiki 22:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the information team for The Lemc so it is not that intersting that it came from the same anonymous user. The club is not Known widely by other people outside Of the LEMC as it is an exclusive members club. However the LEMC would be recognised by potential members. The LEMC is in the process of being made. Will this be a verifiable source of information? Obviously \the club do not want to give away to much information about the club as it would no longer then be exclusive. The LEMC have decided that the information on the Larkism page is just enough for potiential members to get an insight into the LEMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What you don't seem to get is that Wikipedia is not your club's bulletin board or recruitment service. If you want to hide info about your club so that it's unverifiable, that's your choice -- but don't expect to have an encyclopedia article. If you want to control the amount of information you give out, make your own website. NawlinWiki 22:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LEMC is in The Process Of building a website. it is using wikipedia to inform potential members, and anyone who might be interested in the subject about the LEMC. Is this not the purpose of an encyclopedia? The LEMC does not recruit Members all potential members are hand picked by christopher J, since wikipedia is such a widely recognised encyclopedia it made sense to put The LEMC on here. All essential information About the LEMC is sent out by Post.

what information would be required to make the information Verifiable. i will try to negoitiate with the LEMC council to see what information can be allowed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It would take more than a release of information by your organization to satisfy WP demands. Please refer to WP:V for more information. HumbleGod 22:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a Quote from a potiential member that turned down the request be okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs) 22:45, July 9, 2006 (UTC)
  • No, because "articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). PLEASE review WP:V for what types of sources would be acceptable. HumbleGod 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking all aspects into consideration this article should not be deleted.

  • DISCUSSION ENDED

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.41.75 (talk • contribs)

  • Rrrright. A super-secret rich men't club, they've found a fictional necklace in the wreckage of the real Titanic, and they have their own names for the days of the week named after Rolex watches. Oh, come on. Delete, implausible, unverifiable, if it's not a hoax, then it's an advert. I was very tempted to speedy delete in this case. No, on second thoughts, Speedy delete it is. -- The Anome 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7. Non-notable. Let's get this over with. Tevildo 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Tevildo. --Merovingian {T C @} 23:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the one who initially PRODed it. Hoax-ish and vanity. I would have deleted it myself but I think it is borderline A7 and letting the discussion here end would be best. However, I wouldn't be suprised if this closes early per WP:SNOW. Pepsidrinka 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Closing now, deleting as per consensus + WP:SNOW, also speedy deletion as per CSD A7. -- The Anome 23:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was speedy delete as copyvio. Haukur 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Brock[edit]

non-notable person per WP:BIO. Another editor had tagged this for speedy per CSD A7, but was removed without reason by editor who created the article. Agent 86 20:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current family of Hesse-Kassel[edit]

This page is unencyclopedic and rather thought-out; retaining such a page would "allow" for more pages of the type, which would be all too numerous. Either delete or userify to Finlandais. Charles 20:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or userify, as nominator. Charles 20:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Oppose deletion. Better to have these listed as this sort of lists than each as an own article, which has been another tendency here. See the endless minor articles of hundreds of persons whose only promionence is of being XX-hundredth in the line of British succession. It seems people wants these names presented somewhere, and this is to avoid all of them as separate articles. Finlandais 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the people in that "article" are not members of the House of Hesse-Kassel and are non-notable, thus would not be mentioned on WP to begin with. Charles 10:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - taking back the userify comment, as I'm not sure who would get this article. HumbleGod 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who? Not appropriate here. Could be encyclopaedic but unsourced and no notability asserted. BlueValour 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missjackie69[edit]

Subject of dubious notability (36 unique GHits for "Missjackie69", most of which appear irrelevant, and none at all for "Jackie Butorsky" -- not a good sign of notability for a supposed "internet celebrity"), and probably impossible to verify many of the assertions in the article. Only claims to fame are having one of her videos played on VH1 alongside other momentary internet funnies, having been on Jenny Jones, and having met some actual celebrities. Was tagged for speedy, was detagged by someone else, so decided to open it up for AfD debate. ~ Matticus78 20:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the internet she goes only by the name Missjackie, her real name was included for completeness. Also, what "assertations" need to be verified? Perhaps some on here will argue she isn't a "true" celebrity... she doesn't have her own show like Andy Milonakis, but what is the minimum amount of fame to classify someone with that term? Her videos on Youtube have been viewed over 280,000 times and are quite popular. Maybe you should have a look there. I suppose you are free to do whatever you want on here. Oh well. --Bwd234 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I placed the original speedy tag. Posting a few funny clips on the web and having one played on a VH1 clip show, to me, is not evidence of notability. Nuttah68 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. 'most worthless piece of viewer mail they received that week' is not a claim to notability IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because who cares. Danny Lilithborne 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not I. RFerreira 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Wikipedia article on Web Junk 20 even has her name mentioned in it. I see no reason not to leave her page up! --Bwd234 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all reasons stated above. Chad1m 04:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bauman[edit]

No Notability asserted; no sourcing. Delete. BlueValour 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At present Mr. Bauman is a sophmore on the Albany mens basketball team who played a grand total of 9 total minutes last season.[53] At present he is in no way notable until he accomplishes something in his collegiate career. DrunkenSmurf 22:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not very observant today; just spotted the creator was Drbauman! BlueValour 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, auto, etc. I think Mr. Bauman has had his nine minutes of fame on WP. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was deal with as copyvio. W.marsh 20:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LifeNet[edit]

All three sentences on this page are taken word-for-word from the LifeNet @ Media Lab Commonsense Computing Project [54] link at the bottom of the article's page (which only has three sentences on its page). KarenAnn 21:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: then why didn't you tag it as a copyvio? --Bill (who is cool!) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll do that. I had considered it. KarenAnn 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was redirect; please don't waste time with AFD on such obvious cases.--SB | T 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek Sec[edit]

Also nominating Dalek Jast, Dalek Caan and Dalek Thay. All four articles repeat the same information, with minor differences, which is already contained at Dalek variants. There is nothing here that makes four articles needed and the information should be tidied into Dalek variants Nuttah68 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. HumbleGod 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Sec should wind up being used in a future episode, then it may be worth resurrecting the article as a separate entity. Otherwise, it doesn't seem worth the space. --Joe Sewell 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as superfluous, per nom and Joe Sewell Chrisd87 22:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Redirect to Dalek variants. An unsurprising search term, but these are effectively contentless. Ziggurat 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per above. — Nathan (talk) / 04:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect. No need to have individual articles on minor characters, per Wikipedia guidelines and Doctor Who WikiProject practices. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Dalek Sec into either List of Doctor Who villains or Doomsday (Doctor Who), as he is likely to return. Delete the others as we really don't need articles for minor characters. I'd question the spellings of 'Jast' and 'Caan' anyway. RobbieG 12:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RobbieG. Generally, if a Doctor Who character does return though, they get a separate article. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If he returns, as is likely, then he should probably get his own article but right now all four can probably be covered on List of Doctor Who villains by a mention of the Cult of Skaro Corbo 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should perish under Maximum deletion!. Sorry :-) --Keycard (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.football.college[edit]

This one of hundreds of discussion channels, and is not particularly notable. GChriss 22:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is apparently being used as a vanity or maybe attack page among several of the newsgroup users. --Metropolitan90 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to assert notability. Danny Lilithborne 01:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are thousands of newsgroups and there is no justification for individual articles. BlueValour 00:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was MERGE to Judy Grahn and make this a REDIRECT. Yes I know nobody suggested that, but there wasn't really a quorum, and not much argument made. I think a less-destructive result of Merge is in order here. Herostratus 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women's press collective of oakland[edit]

Delete as non-notable. Google produced 19 unique hits with many being WP and mirror sites. Gay Cdn 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lantry[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Only 47 Google results [55].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being "friends with" allegedly noted persons does not make yourself noted. --A bit iffy 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HumbleGod 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy article comes from a 100% vandalism account Rklawton 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Was listed as speedy, was removed by the author, I accidentally reverted the removal while you were listing it for deletion. Ryulong 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. non notable. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Glade Primary School[edit]

As I understand it, primary schools are not considered notable on WP. Prod was removed by author, so sent to AfD HumbleGod 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--blue520 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Colleges are notable, some high schools are notable, but primary schools aren't inherently notable unless they did something remarkable besides exist. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a valid reason to keep anything. Proto///type 10:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth --JJay 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary sentence into Sutton-in-Ashfield. — RJH (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sutton-in-Ashfield. RFerreira 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Sutton-in-Ashfield (where it's already mentioned) to dissuade from recreation. Merge, delete, either, just do not keep. Proto///type 10:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable primary school, no wikilinks and doesn't link to anything except AFD. Catchpole 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not all schools are notable no matter what some people say. Carlossuarez46 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion. Bahn Mi 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While notability may not be a requirement for inclusion, being encyclopedic is. Nothing in this article indicates any encyclopedic value. Agent 86 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons articulated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. As I understand it, elementary schools are notable and should be kept if we ever want to become the sum of all human knowledge. Silensor 17:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor and Bahn Mi. --Myles Long 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though/although Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep was voted down, its still a very valid argument to keep. JJay is right, our threshold is verifiability, not notability.  ALKIVAR™ 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More notable than Star Wars weapons. Osomec 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this information is important and verifiable too Yuckfoo 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Sutton-in-Ashfield. The amount of human knowledge represented by directory listing of elementary schools is miniscule indeed. Eluchil404 07:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enough said. Since merges are counted as a keep, those are wasted votes to delete the article. Vegaswikian 05:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable school Jaranda wat's sup 06:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. McPhail 16:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice stub that could do with some expansion. That takes time - certainly more than the 3 minutes provided to the author before it was tagged for deletion. --JJay 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable school - primary schools are not inherently notable nor do they have the place in the community of high schools. This school asserts no notability. BlueValour 23:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Worklist[edit]

Blatant commercial advertising Medconn 22:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedal pumping[edit]

I cannot tell if this is a genuine foot fedish page or not. Creator removed first deletion template, claiming this was a legitimate area of interest. There are a few hits on Google but I can't tell whether they are just semi-porno girls and cars, or whether there is some level of foot fedish as legit concern. KarenAnn 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. There _is_ this site. I don't know - and I don't really want to know - if there are many more like it out there, but, as a fetish, it does exist. Tevildo 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are, in fact, quite a few sites dedicated to this fetish. Some of these sites were originally referenced in the article, but were later removed by overzealous editors who believe that any link to a pay site must be spam. We have articles here on some far more obscure paraphilias, and this is certainly not a hoax, as you claimed in your first attempt to delete the page. Also, your first deletion template was not removed by the article creator; you used the Proposed Deletion template, which I correctly removed. Kindly familiarize yourself with the process of deletion before making such accusations. Owen× ☎ 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I apologize to you if you took anything I did as an accusation. I didn't mean it that way -- I was not meaning to criticize either you or the creator for any of your actions. I was genuinely curious and Tevildo's reply (above) was most helpful. As I said originally, I could not tell and wanted some feedback. KarenAnn 11:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem; sorry if I came across as too harsh. Articles dealing with paraphilias often come under attack from people who consider the activity described as reprehensible, or have other moral objections to it. Considering that many of these paraphilias are practiced by thousands (and in some cases millions) of people, I think they deserve a WP entry at least as much as, say, each of the 386 Pokémon characters. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Article is totally unverifable and violation of Wikipedia is not a place for orignal research. Storm05 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the caveat that external links should not pose as advertising for commercial sites in relation to the article. --Brad101 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the key point is that the article is unsourced and not verifiable. It also appears to be a peg on which to hang some commercial sites.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellerslie Hall[edit]

College dormitory, no notability asserted. 304 Google hits, no real independent sources, most of them are related to Leeds University in some way or forums of students discussing the dorm. Metros232 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. College housing cruft. This is also a topic mentioned in WP:BAI. I get only 89 unique google hits [56].--Fuhghettaboutit 23:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - college dorms are not inherently notable. BlueValour 23:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil's solo[edit]

No information of this alleged Brand X song can be found on Yahoo. 50+ links on Yahoo, but all related to Phil Collins's solo work and not this song. [57]. Page creator also added this as a track to unrelated albums recorded near a decade before its performance, [58]. Ataricodfish 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This user added incorrect information to the Brand X article and to Do They Hurt?. I don't know if Phil's solo has actually been performed live, but I've never seen it on a Brand X disc. Someone (or more than one person) has been inserting incorrect material about Brand X, including a fake guitarist "Ian Hart-Stein". The lead guitarist has pretty much always been John Goodsall. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can be recreated if sources found. BlueValour 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Kimchi.sg 00:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didier[edit]

Pure nonsense page that somehow has survived on Wikipedia since October, 2005. Ataricodfish 22:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator I just noticed that the nonsense on Didier was actually vandalism by User:Rory Carrol. I have reverted the original article back, although the new article still is questionable in its noteability. I am striking my original comment and withdrawing my nomination, although I feel a warning should be placed on the User's talk page due to the vandalism. --Ataricodfish 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. nn, OR --Madchester 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blinker trick[edit]

WP:NOR; hoax; fails Google notability test Clappingsimon talk 23:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Madchester 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerkers[edit]

Non-notable forum, fails WP:WEB badly. Lists itself as having 66 members. Delete. --Aquillion 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ghits demonstrate little about this forum. Also, as nom indicates, forum hosts a small membership roll. Yet another prod removed by a page author who doesn't bother to upgrade the article in any meaningful way (not that it's probably possible in this case, anyway). --NMChico24 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as original prodder. ~ Matticus78 08:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slip Trigger Movie[edit]

1 Google hit for "Slip Trigger" Massey (the name of the writer/producer/director) and it's not related to this movie. Crystal-balling about a non-notable film. Metros232 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No listing in IMDB which is no surprise as the article states the movie is "in the pre-production phase".--Fuhghettaboutit 00:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Jusjih 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a movie made by some dude and his buddies for fun. [60] Currently the cast/crew are not notable and neither is the film. DrunkenSmurf 03:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA vs Stanford (2005)[edit]

I find it hard to see that a college game meets the notability requirements but I don't see anything remarkable about this one. I recall a long debate where an England v Germany international football match only just survived an AfD. Simply put, I don't think any club game meets the requirement unless it is to decide a major national cup, for example. Delete. BlueValour 23:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Certainly some major college football games, such as the one with The Play or Georgia Tech's 222-0 win over Cumberland in 1916, are noteworthy enough. But this was just another Pac-10 regular-season game. -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as WP is concerned, this game is as non-notable as every game played by the Knicks last season. -- Kicking222 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and kick Kicking for giving the Knicks too much credit. --DarkAudit 00:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per above. — RJH (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another regular season game with no standalone notability. "The 2005 edition of the UCLA-Stanford game was one of the best." POV much? --Kinu t/c 03:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all these well reasoned arguments. There's just no encyclopaedic content to that game. WilyD 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me explain why this is notable. It was the biggest comeback of the 2005 college football season. I have seen hundreds of games as a college football fan, and I can say that this is one of the best. This needs to be kept, since it was one of the best in school history--Summonmaster13 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Stanford student here, and I don't even remember there being any fuss over this. Not like, say, when Texas A&M broke their decades-long losing streak to UT and the impromptu street party lasted all night (not that I'd put that game in WP either). --Jamoche 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarkAudit. Eluchil404 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete CSD G4 - not word-for-word identical, but still 95% similar to the previous AfD'ed version. Kimchi.sg 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Roleplaying[edit]

Non-notable gaming community. Possible speedy as {{db-repost}} (see previous AfD), but I haven't seen the deleted version so I put it up for discussion here. Zoz (t) 23:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the closely related ERPWiki article. The site has no Alexa rating [61]. --Zoz (t) 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bookmarking site, voting delete. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, based on my understanding of consensus, has nothing to do with usefulness. Useful, but doesn't meet policy. Captainktainer * Talk 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was unanimous keep, nomination for deletion withdrawn. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Allen[edit]

I'm pretty sure it fails WP:MUSIC. I vote Delete My apologies. It does appear that she is notable. If I could retract my nom I would. Keep and cleanup.TheRingess 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like a bad-faith nomination, considering the rampant vandalism currently happening on the page and the fact she currently has the number one single in the UK, [62] --Ataricodfish 01:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm striking my bit about the bad-faith nomination, as having reviewed the page history I believe the nominator meant well and was nominating based on one of the previously biased articles that looked like just another MySpace article. But my keep vote remains, due to her successful single. --Ataricodfish 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but article needs work. -- Gogo Dodo 01:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wiped out most of the vandalism, I believe. -- Gogo Dodo 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her single is currently number one in the UK Chart so she meets the very first notability criterion of WP:MUSIC. -- JJC1138 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the nominator has withdrawn his original arguments. (Speedy keep?) RFerreira 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nominator withdraws his nomination. HumbleGod 06:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Speedy Keep, number one in UK today with Smile. Budgiekiller 12:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - also meets "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." criteria, as she is currently on the highest rotation playlist of BBC Radio 2 [63] Alexj2002 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Alexj2002 and nominator. Yamaguchi先生 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why doesn't whoever wanted to delete the entry now get rid of the thing at the top ruining it if they no longer want it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.56.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - because the article was nominated for deletion and has to now run its course until an admin decides that either the withdrawal of the orignial nomination or the overwhelming keep vote is sufficient to remove the notice. Budgiekiller 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's certainly well known now, and the article appears to have been extensively cleaned up. - I84 21:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_9&oldid=1081096038"