Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 20

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

Purge server cache

June 20[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 rename consensus is to rename to Treaty of Waitangi settlements and claims Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry[edit]

Orphaned nom by User:222.153.86.99. They put on the talk page "Really this article has no value and linking it to serious articles attempting to provide NPOV analysis of NZ politics hurts those articles. An article on Treaty of Waitangi claims and there perception by NZ public could however be done in a NPOV manner. I thinks this article should be deleted." Midnighttonight 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. Why is everyone caught up with the name of the article? As Ziggurat pointed out, the phrase is in contemporary use. Just because some might disagree with the validity of the term doesn't mean that the term doesn't exist, nor that documenting it is inherently invalid! Pejorative terms have encyclopaedic entries, f.ex. compare Nigger & N-word. Please respond, I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks. DavidHallett 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment because the focus of the article is not on the term, but on the idea behind it. The content would best be placed in a context that allows for WP:NPOV discussions of all perspectives rather than a talking point jargon title that implies de-facto agreement with one side of the argument, and this article a discussion of the evolution of the term (if there's enough to say about that) or a redirect to the more general article if there isn't. Ziggurat 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. After consideration of your comment, I now agree with most aspects of your suggestion. It certainly makes sense to move the Grievance Industry diatribe over to Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements and leave the page solely as a discussion on the evolution and etymology of the phrase.
Comment. I've done a quick Knowledge Basket search on the term. It shows up maybe 50 times (compared to 200 for Helengrad, which was considered to be sufficient to avoid deletion). It mainly appears in ACT press releases until 2004, when it started showing up in National statements, with the variant of Winston Peters' "gravy train". That's about all you can say on its etymology. I don't think it needs a page on its own to explain this. --Tirana 00:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, A7 (no assertion of notability) and G4 (recreated deleted content). —Cuiviénen 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John-Hedley Desmond Lucy McConnell[edit]

This page was deleted several times as a memorial page, and still keeps getting recreated and had a prod tag removed once. As a result, I'm going to take the debate here. Editor88 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable tour director from the sound of it, pure panegyric. Read WP:NOT. Jammo (SM247) 03:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G4 as recreated material, inasmuch as it'd be a speedy A7 with no assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being sad but truly non-notable. Eddie.willers 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. I added some references about him in various newsletters under "External links". It would be helpful if we knew the cause of death. Perhaps if some additional information can be found about him and the projects he worked on, he would be more notable. TruthbringerToronto 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is not an obituary page, not free web space, and not a place to grieve. - Richardcavell 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Kinu and put notice stating it should not be recreated. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, fails CSD:G4. Protect from re-creation. --Coredesat 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notabilty satisfying WP:BIO (brother of a band member is nn), wikipedia is not a memorial... and protect from being recreated. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, and replace the page with {{deletedpage}} --WinHunter (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a speedy deleted article is constantly recreated, there's no harm in it coming here for the community to remeasure the article against WP:N. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't see the earlier ones, but the only memorial type aspect is the link to the memorial page, which doesn't make it a memorial to me. To me, memorial type writing is unencyclopedic, but the writing on this page does seem to be encyclopedic (at least now). The second reference seems to me to pass the test for `not original'. I think the thresholds on notability are flexible enough to include this. snug 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete + {{deletedpage}}, recreated content. Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think everybody deserve to be here! It doesn’t matter if you where a rich person, poor , black or white…If the family, friend’s or someone unknown wants to include a person here…why not include him? I’m sure he deserves it!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.75.163 (talk • contribs) (with further support from...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.155.32 (talk • contribs) )
Sadly, your opinion differs from the majority of Wikipedians'; see WP:BIO. This is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive list of every single human being who has ever existed. There is not room to include everyone, and more to the point, that is not what Wikipedia is for. — Haeleth Talk 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all condolences, but if we can't even find the cause if death this clearly runs afoul of WP:V. The creator is urged to find another outlet for this. There are many other ways to memorialize loved ones on the internet. ~ trialsanderrors 16:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Snugspout, the thresholds on notability are indeed flexible enough to keep this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.39.155.32 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-20 16:25:12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but this simply isn't the place. — Haeleth Talk 16:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Richardcavell. Please find another outlet for a memorial. -- Scientizzle 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wikipedia archives state: "Obscure content isn't harmful, Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.", " "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).", "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion.", The article on Jay McConnell can be improved or reduced to a stub, the information provided is accurate and will be expanded over the following days, this article through error may have started out as a memorial, but it is now a valid encyclopedic addition.Tristan 18:01, 20 June 2006
Comment This vote by Tristan was added by IP 83.39.155.32 with another vote above. -- Scientizzle 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Why were just losing time about the thing? I've a lot of relatives who died, should I add a memorial for each of them here?--Attilios 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of suject to meet WP:BIO criteria. I'd also support Speedy as G4 if this is sufficently close enough to the previous content. Regardless, it should be page protected.--Isotope23 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn notable reposted content, Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Dakota ~ 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Tieri[edit]

Is this person notable enough for an encyclopedia entry? User:Arual 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - She has a lead role in a commercially-released series, Magic User's Club, which makes her notable enough for an article. It seems her American Idol appearance (while it did not last long) has given her sufficient notability as well. A Google search turns up several news articles, several from reputable-looking sources, about her appearance on Idol there, and if she appeared on a VH1 special as mentioned, that makes her even more notable. Don't think a deletion is necessary. --EmperorBrandon 00:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tend to agree with Emperor Brandon's decision. - Richardcavell 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable outside the reality tv shows, agree with EmperorBrandon. --Arnzy (whats up?) 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though currently it is terribly under-referenced. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fairly notable outside American Idol. --Coredesat 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her IMDB profile is small, but gives confirmation to her involvement in a widely publicised TV series. Black-Velvet 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A single lead role in a notable TV series is not much, but enough to warrant an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think Scooter Girl is notable -- Samir धर्म 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable through secondary sources, article is encyclopedicly written. snug 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EmperorBrandon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xonab Enterprises[edit]

nn fails to meet WP:CORP Wisden17 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--ᎠᏢ462090Contribs 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there must be hundreds of thousands of web design businesses out there. Jammo (SM247) 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per SM247 -- Where 01:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Definitely non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly nn. Company has two minor clients and no Ghits other than its own site plus "created by" for one of the clients. Paddles TC 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The CEO's name was a wikilink, but it goes to Joseph Pignatello a protected deleted page. Hmmmm. Paddles TC 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well let me clear that up. The CEO page was marked as a CSD, and duly deleted. I think the page was then recreated within one minute of being deleted. This is the reason why, I think, it has been protected to stop it simply being recreated again (i.e for a third time). --Wisden17 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium complex[edit]

This seems like just a one-sentence dictionary definition to me, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Where 00:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter W. Wager[edit]

Non-notable person that co-authored a text book. Edit history shows that the article was created by someone with the name "Wwager"; sounds like vanity. -- Where 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity article of a non-notable person. doktorb | words 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several book titles have been added. I think that he can now be regarded as notable. TruthbringerToronto 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are millions of authors; just because he is an author, doesn't mean he is notable. -- Where 01:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like someone is confusing Wikipedia with Books in Print -- or, in this case Books That Were Once Briefly in Print. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's notable enough, I think. He has, after all, written a compleat training manual. - Richardcavell 01:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah -- in 1989. Things have moved on a bit in computers, since then. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main objection to this appears to be vanity. Note that WP:VAIN says vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion Dlyons493 Talk 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It still fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 08:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trialsanderrors. Sufficiently notable, and a username isn't enough to prove that the article is an autobiography. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trialsanderrors. While not wanting to encourage vanity articles, I think the subject does meet notability criteria - and the article is at least encyclopedic, not "Walter likes the Beatles, gouda and tantric sex" stuff we usually see in vanity articles. Paddles TC 14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted Trialsanderrors has altered his/her vote, but I choose not to change mine. And before any pedants jump on either of us, we both know full well that AfD discussions are not literal votes, ok? Paddles TC 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, admittedly this is right on the cusp of WP:BIO and could go either way, but I'm leaning delete because of the probable WP:VAIN violation unless further evidence towards WP:BIO is put forward...--Isotope23 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does not pass the average professor text. Vanity.--Prosfilaes 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone provides a link to his publication list. JeffBurdges 09:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable. Royalbroil 00:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — As it stands, fails WP:PROF. --Satori Son 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even close to reaching the standards of WP:PROF. 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete fails WP:PROF. Vanity page Bwithh 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, A7. —Cuiviénen 02:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermillion Hair[edit]

Notability is not asserted. Richardcavell 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn--Jusjih 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Where 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVRTV[edit]

Non-notable website vanity posting. Buckner 1986 01:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Tychocat 07:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. No alexa traffic ranking. The site is broken too (not a reason for deletion, but hey... if you can't even provide an index page...). - Motor (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Paddles TC 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WinHunter (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FCC story seems notable but no source available Wep 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. Hello Wisconsin 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. No fair use galleries. Period. Utility does not enter into the equation. Most of these images are incorrectly tagged as public domain, under the mistaken assumption that works of state governments are works of the federal government. Go ye back to civics class! Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state driver's licenses[edit]

This is nothing but a collection of images and Wikipedia is not an image repository Nv8200p talk 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am troubled that it appears the woman in the Nebraska license, alias "Francesca A. Sample, M.D.", appears to be the same woman in the Nevada license, going under the name "Suzy Driver". If Dr. Sample is using aliases and fleeing the law, perhaps the authorities should be notified. </bad joke> That startling revelation aside, I could see a few choice images being used in driver's license, and if someone were feeling plucky I suppose the article could have Driver's licenses in the United States, a full article talking specifically about the U.S. licensing process and the variations from state to state. As it stands, though, it's merely a photo gallery and should be deleted. JDoorjam Talk 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy this to me please, friendly closer. An image gallery is unencyclopedia; however, I think this is an admirable start to an encyclopedic article subpart, and all of the images are PD, so there is no reason to orphan and delete them after someone took the trouble; I'll try to work something up. BTW, I loved the joke, JDoorjam! Xoloz 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these images are currently incorrectly tagged as public domain. Should this article be kept, they would have to be tagged as fair use (unless scans of real driver's licenses can be uploaded, but it's doubtful that scanning it is enough to obtain the copyright. Anyway, a fair use assertion would be weak, as this article doesn't even describe the images, it just displays them (and it can't be userfied if the images are fair use). --Rory096 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDoorj has made an argument that applies to most of wikipedia. However there is an article that is a clear reason why this article should not be deleted. How is it that wikipedia can say that a List_of_U.S._state_license_plates is acceptable and seriously consider deleteing this article? I am making an argument about the article, NOT the images contained therin --Greataff 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons unless encyclopedic text added. MaxSem 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are not free, it can't go to Commons. --Rory096 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've made some changes to Nevada (a beautiful state but that not NPOV) and Alaska and included some information on the licenses themselve. I and all of us should fee the changes made to these two states should show a precendent of what should happen to the other states and territories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs) .
    • By adding the words you go from a collection of images to an article about non-notable items. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The combination of copyright issues, notability consideration, and the poor current state of the article introduces too many problems. Though I feel bad for whoever uploaded all these images.--Chaser T 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a fair number of votes above; however, every single one of them call for a different action. Please help me out here, friendly AfD voters </ Xoloz impression> --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a good reference. That's what wikipedia is for: To help us find out information. - Richardcavell 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has virtually no content except the images. How is it a reference? --Rory096 05:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article is unorganized and missing states, like mine, the article can provide some usefulness if it cleaned-up and expanded with more information to go with the pictures. The current pictures may need to be clean-up as well. Every state probably has a "sample" photo of what a driver license looks like, such as Michigan, and these anonymous and undoctored licenses are the ones that should be used to add consistency and professionalism. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪
  • Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia guidelines (original research), image copyright laws, and very possibly privacy as well. This article is truly a collection of discriminate information, which is what we are not supposed to be doing. --FuriousFreddy 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is undoubtedly an interesting article. However, at the moment, I am not quite sure what the point is. I am also bothered that many of the photographs are marked up as possible copyvios.I think the best solution is for it to be deleted for now and the author can create a new article when he has sorted out the various issues. BlueValour 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TOTALLY KEEP whichever is not copyvio. Brjatlick 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would be none. --Rory096 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per JDoorjam's suggestion for creating an article on [Driver's licenses in the United States]]. There are issues about copyrights, public domain, fair use etc.; I'm not informed enough to comment on these. But an article about licenses in the US and the ways they are de facto identity cards would be verifiable, NPOV and non-OR. Given that the US system is certainly a mystery for many foreigners, and also for many Americans, gives the added benefit of notability. People should be encourage to expand the narrative about each state's ID and also to contribute to the ways the automobile has become of central importance to American identity (literally). Interlingua talk 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A thoughtful suggestion, as always, from Interlingua. I like the concept of the new article. Where I differ, however, is in achieving it by renaming. That leaves a number of the issues unresolved. I still think that a Delete followed by a fresh start is the answer. BlueValour 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyright violations aplenty. --Coredesat 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyvio, listcruft, and how do all those people look so good for their DL photos? Tychocat 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this was for any other country we wouldn't be having this discussion, it would have already gone: compare List of North American area codes and List of Slovak telephone codes for example. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Unfree images can't be considered fair use in a gallery format. But I'd be happy to whoever asked for userfication to take a go at writing Driver's licenses in the United States. If he doesn't do it in a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), I agree with a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I find it an interesting and useful article that reflects just one facet of the fact that US states can have a lot of different laws in many areas. Shan246
  • Strongly Keep, I feel this is a very useful contribution to the encyclopedia. -- Drewry 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for the pictures, at least.
    While this may well be a useful resource, that in itself is not a reason for it to be in Wikipedia. There are many types of useful resource which we do not include: telephone directories are useful, but we do not include lists of phone numbers; marriage registers are useful, but we do not list every wedding in the world; dictionaries are very useful, but we do not include mere dictionary definitions. The question is not "is this useful", but "is this an encyclopedia article?" And the answer is, "no, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a collection of pictures". Therefore, we should not keep it in its current form.
    If the pictures were cut down to a representative sample, and the list was replaced with an actual article on the history of state drivers' licenses, the cultural significance of their differences, the controversy surrounding their use as ID, etc etc., then we could keep that. But we cannot keep this. — Haeleth Talk 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of encyclopedic content, but the idea for the new article makes sense and I'm sure many of the images could be used there. -Dawson 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (if)for the reasons listed above. Further, I contend that this list is in fact encyclopedic. A list of items that are encyclopedic on there own is what lists are for, aren't they? And besides, unlike many of our lists, this one can be "finished". However, if those images (or the majority) are not public domain then the list suddenly becomes a liability and should be Deleted. It is possible that each license should get it's own article and a category. (would be easy to justify FU then) Is Split a usable vote? :) ---J.S (t|c) 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is encyclopedic content, or at least has the potential to be. --Alex S 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix, expand. Good basis for an article. Aguerriero (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is useful, unlike all the Pokemon and Star Trek crap we currently have. Erik the Rude 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has its value. I don't think many have ever seen so many different driver licenses. Though the article ought to be expanded. --WinHunter (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has its value Not unless you're the X-Files prop guy looking for references, otherwise not really useful or informative. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found it interesting. It would be interesting to know more information, too, like which licenses have holograms and of what, and what other security features are used in them. Even just looking at the image gallery was interesting. Mangojuicetalk 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but try to expand beyond a collection of images. Maybe talk more about the security feature of each license. Nationalparks 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an image gallery, in support of...what, exactly? What encyclopedic information is actually being preseented here or which could be potentially presented by 51 pictures? This is someone's misguided idea of completeness, not to mention the copyright violations and probable bogosity (check out the "DC driver's license" -- despite the claim on the image page, it's NOT from the DC DMV). --Calton | Talk 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would keep but image copyright issues makes me say delete -- Tawker 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Interlingua to Driver's licenses in the United States and expand as he suggested. Seems nearly as encyclopedic as Flags of the U.S. states and, at least to me, much more interesting. --William Pietri 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a misconception here this list is somehow a useful reference. Point of fact, many states change their D/L designs every few years, and at this point, it looks like listcruft. Tychocat 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A collection of pictures with copyright problems? No thanks!! Write a new Driver's liscences in the United States from scratch. Grandmasterka 20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is inviting forgery of drivers licenses. That is not a good thing in today's climate. The responsible thing would be to delete this now! Buckner 1986 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Most of the images are public (state) resources so probably no copyvio. Interesting resources to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wep (talk • contribs)
  • Keep & Rename -- can someone just WP:SNOW this as no consensus? The images have got to be fair use at least, and Interlingua is right that a move to Driver's licenses in the United States is a good idea and will allow for more information. Mangojuicetalk 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They are state licences and I doubt if a state sees the licence here they will sue the wikipedia. The "copyright vio" argument is just silly. --DragonWR12LB 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnatic instrumentalists[edit]

Listcruft. Purpose already served by the Carnatic instrumentalists category. cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Danielrocks123 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page serves the purpose of listing musicians by instrument, which the category does not. It also provides a ready reference to start creating articles from. ImpuMozhi 02:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMozhi. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while I agree that cats are better form of organising info, they need not be the only form. For smaller categories where it doesn't make sense to create sub-cats, lists are a better alternative. Also, what ImpuMozhi said. --Gurubrahma 05:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMozhi. However it needs inclusion of more notable people or articles created on notable people already in the list. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMozhi -- Samir धर्म 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to category. --Coredesat 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMozhi. It clearly serves a sorting purpose a category can't fulfill, so it's not redundant as Coredesat claims. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. David L Rattigan 11:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what ImpuMozhi said. Keresaspa 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMozhi. List and category serves different purposes. --WinHunter (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Changed my mind. --Coredesat 21:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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--Kungfu Adam (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

NN and top POV Googleyii 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HL Engineering[edit]

The author keeps removing a prod tag put in by another editor. This article looks a lot like advertisement. The author has been violating Wikipedia policy by repeatedly removing tags. I offer it here to let others decide its fate. --CapitalR 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who originally tagged the article, thanks very much CapitalR. The article does not meet WP:CORP as far as I can see. Delete -Fsotrain09 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unplugged podcast[edit]

A podcast begun (checking watch) two days ago. Three guys and a mic: not notable. Was prod'ed and tagged for speedy deletion -- all tags removed without comment. Calton | Talk 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Highly non-notable. --Danielrocks123 02:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete. The podcast is quite notable, many peopel know abotu it. THe blogspot is just 2 days old, we reasently moved, as for removal, that was unrelated to the podcast, by soem one else, this should not be delted, also there are many podcasts such as triangulation that are less notable than ours— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spektormax (talk • contribs)
    • You'll need to cite a source if your right, otherwise it's your word against other peoples word.--Andeh 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are any reliable sources (press, journal articles, etc.) for the information presented. Ziggurat 02:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gain notability, then come back and see us. -- Rjm656s 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absurdly non notable - "One of the amazing things about the podcast is that it was only 6 hours from the initial idea to the release of the first episode". Please... Jammo (SM247) 03:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. How often does it need to be said? Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Eddie.willers 03:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously added by the owner, vanity/non notable basically per nom and others.--Andeh 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, fails WP:NFT and WP:VAIN, and is simply a horribly-written article. --Coredesat 07:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. 6 hours from the idea to the release of the first episode? 1 hour from the article creation to being tagged for AFD. It wasn't fast enough though. I suppose WP:WEB applies too. - Motor (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently, there has only been one episode. 'Nuff said. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet the criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. TJ Spyke 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and it fails too many WP policies. --WinHunter (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect can of course be created if anyone is interested. W.marsh 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taal language[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as hoax/nonsense, but does not really satsfy WP:CSD. An incoming link from Taal was added by someone other than this page's author, so I'm looking for more input. Entry justifying speedy tag from article talk page follows. Kusma (討論) 02:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this nonsense, "die taal" is simply Afrikaans for "the language", typically used to mean the Afrikaans language. This "latest stage in Afrikaans" stuff with influence from German etc is invented nonsense. Possibly some crank idealogue's idea of what they would like Afrikaans to be. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you will find Taal or The Taal listed in English dictionaries as another name for Afrikaans, this word belongs in the same bin as gramophone, bioscope, perambulator though :P Kuratowski's Ghost 11:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) - by which I mean its an early 20th century term, not used anymore in English, within Afrikaans itself "Die Taal" is a sort of poetic name for Afrikaans. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite patent nonsense, but fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 07:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: from the links to other wikipedia pages, it looks like references to Taal were added there long ago. However, I can't find a reference to it on the South African Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia or the Dutch Wikipedia (the three most likely places to have such an article or reference). I suppose the references to Taal are a confusion between the name of the language (Afrikaans) and the reference to "the language" (Die Taal). Fram 08:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for WP:BJAODN - it's good enough for there. --Sunholm(talk) 11:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is pure nonsense: as a South African I can assert that "die taal" is a colloquial term sometimes used in reference to Afrikaans, but nothing more than that. StuartF 14:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't get how that makes it nonsense. If it is a colloquialism, shouldn't it me made a redirect, instead of deleted? Aguerriero (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taal is a disambiguation page as the word has several meanings, a nonagenerian wikipedia user genuinely oblivious to the fact that Afrikaans is called Afrikaans and has been called this for about a century will always be able to find this disambiguation page if they search for Taal. There is also an entry for Taal on wiktionary. Its extrememly unlikely that people will be looking for "Taal language". Kuratowski's Ghost 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Redirects are cheap and useful. All inbound links have already been fixed, excluding only a User Talk page and the AFD pages. GRBerry 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Afrikaans because redirects are cheap. If someone wrote a hoax/misunderstanding here, it's conceiveable someone could search it. Grandmasterka 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 dekete. W.marsh 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booleansoft[edit]

Nonnotable computer consulting company NawlinWiki 02:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsa yoga[edit]

Article was PROD-tagged. I think a vote is called for. The page sounds like self-promotion, but maybe Hamsa Yoga itself is notable, in which case the page could be reworded instead of deleted. ImpuMozhi 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hamsa Yoga generates 10,000 hits but around half of them seem to refer to a planetary position and its implication for astrology. Probly, this page can be developed as a disambig? I don't feel that the article in its current form reads well. Also, uncited. --Gurubrahma 05:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually, when you exclude the astrology hits, there are less than 1000 hits left referring to the subject of this article. AFAIK, this is not the traditional name of any tradition form of yoga, but rather a marketing name used to market a commercial offering. -Hanuman Das 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no such Yoga as Hamsa Yoga. Article is a promotional bait for an extreme minority cult who has recently spread its Hamsa (duck) wings into a lot of Wikipedia articles. Please note that the name of their founder was deleted in the Fergusson College article's roster of illustrious alumni (placed there by one of the "Hamsas" as part of the "wing spreading") by no less than the article creator himself. That speaks volumes about Hamsa Yoga. - Terminator III
  • Delete - It looks like an Ad to me. --WinHunter (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - going by hits on the Internet doesn't warrant speedy accusations and allegations. 'Ham-sa' is a form of pranayama which is related to the 'Hong Sau' technique taught by Sri Yoganandaji. Type that in google and you'll find links to Ananda why it works as a technique and SRF who offer the technique through a paid prescription. the 'm' in sanksrit is not exactly a labial 'm' but rather a cerebral closer to 'ng' as in 'sing'. Some say 'samskrit' and some say 'sanskrit'. 'Hong Sau' is actually how Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath pronounces it. 'So-ham' is another pranayama technique - but the change in bij syllable will confer a different effect, as well as, the corresponding visualisation and intent will give slightly different results generally. Alan Veredgraal publisher of Tantra Magazine equates 'Hong Sau' and 'So Ham' to a Kriya technique and calls it 'So Ham Kriya' in his articles on Kriya. (http://home.istar.ca/~tantric/krya.html). This one remains impartial to deletion or keeption - just offering something on the matter of whether Hamsa Yoga is a technique or not. It must be said that most 'yogas' are being copyrighted to stand out from the rest - ie. Sahaja Yoga, Sudarshan Yoga, Bikram Yoga/Hot Yoga. Should not these be addressed also for their promotional advertising on Wikipedia and crude marketing tactics? Happy Summer Solstice! 213.106.1.25 11:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VS Games[edit]

Non-notable games company. The article history makes it look like the article was created by the owner of the company, and the article is hence vanity. For an online games company, one would thing they were have a good number of google hits if they were notable. However "VS Games" +Leich yields less than 50 google hits. -- Where 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. W.marsh 01:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rolling stone gathers no moss[edit]

This article seems like original research to me (thus violating WP:NOR. -- Where 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • See nominator's change of heart below... --Satori Son 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a list of proverbs or an attempt to trace their etymology. Jammo (SM247) 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Deleted article gets no readers. Eddie.willers 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean towards Keep, but verify and expand - Wikipedia has a Proverbs category, and articles like Cutting off the nose to spite the face. I admit that the article as it stands is pretty bad, but I'd like to see further discussion of the proverb and its origin (verified of course). --Grace 05:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, tempted to nominate it for speedy for no context. --Coredesat 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look up Appendix:English proverbs in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has quotations related to English proverbs.
  • Does wiktionary list proverbs? If so transwiki, otherwise delete for complete lack of context, which I think can't be added anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep per Grace. This certainly can be expanded; if nothing else, it is part of the explanation of the band name The Rolling Stones. Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/o prejudice against recreation if someone has more context. As it is right now, it's at best a line in the Stones article. ~ trialsanderrors 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment; again, FWIW, I have managed to track down the original Latin of the proverb. The traditional attribution to Publilius Syrus may be wrong, but the text does appear in Erasmus. Smerdis of Tlön 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has many articles like that, which discuss the origins of much-used proverbs. It can be quite fascinating to see where such phrases come from, how they have evolved over time, etc. Check out the categories Category:Proverbs, Category:Phrases, and Category:Figures of speech. ONUnicorn 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note that this article has been substantially improved since the AfD nomination. --Bonalaw 13:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I nominated it, it is clear to me that the article is no longer original research, but is an informative WP article. I will be more eventualist in the future with AFD noms. -- Where 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Project[edit]

Judging from the edit history this is a class project on the history of Impressionism; while the result is excellent, it is inappropriately titled, and completely duplicates the material already found in Impressionism. There is no extra content to merge, and a redirect would be misleading. Ziggurat 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:NFT applies, as this is a research project on a legitimate topic rather than some random topic made up in school. Nevertheless, Ziggurat 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't fail WP:NFT, but would this be considered an indiscriminate source of information, instead? Either way, it's still redundant. --Coredesat 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's a clear content fork, and would make an excellent start to an article if there weren't one on the topic already. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be deleted (I nom'd it, after all!), just that WP:NFT is kinda for something else. Sorry if I come across as nitpicky. Regards, Ziggurat 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, homework, redundant with Impressionism. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post homework assignments unless they are encyclopedic and not duplicates and mistitled. Wikipedia is not a webhost either. Offer a copy of their work and remove it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but let the editors know so they save their work. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a project web server. --WinHunter (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. W.marsh 01:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Life Network[edit]

Website receives a 3,000,000+ ranking on Alexa. Non Notable --Zandarx talk 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB as nn organisation. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find four NY Times articles about it and their proposed construction of a Jewish cultural center in Manhattan from a Google search, as well as mention in the possibly notable "Jewish Journal of Greater LA" and numerous other hits. —Centrx→talk 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 462 unique Google Web hits out of about 10,800. 17 Google Book hits for the phrase. 16 Google Scholar hits for the phrase. Two current Google News hits for the phrase. A clearly notable organization. AFD started 26 minutes after stub creation - and marked as a stub in initial creation. GRBerry 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn org, promo KleenupKrew 10:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- you've gotta be kidding me, zandarx. --Christofurio 15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- If you are going to participate in the vote, please leave a reason. Otherwise label it as a "comment" --Zandarx talk 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote stays as a vote. Reasons? Okay, Alexa has no wikipedian significance, and this article is linked to by the article of Michael Steinhardt, a very notable hedge fund manager and philanthropist. --Christofurio 19:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- notable and recognized not-for-profit foundation (also known as the "Steinhardt Foundation"). An April 2005 article from Brandeis University notes the establishment of the Steinhardt Institute there: "Since establishing Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation a decade ago, Steinhardt has donated more than $100 million in support of programs and initiatives that are successfully renewing American Jewish life." Please note that Website rank is meaningless, as it is not an online venture.--LeflymanTalk 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, WP not a free webhost, and it sounds like they don't need a web presence anyway. Tychocat 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps there's some confusion over the word "Network" in the title. In this sense, it has nothing to do with the Internet/computers. It's a "network" for funding educational and cultural programs. WP is not providing a "free webhost"; the foundation already has an extensive web site: http://www.jewishlife.org --LeflymanTalk 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to clarify, I don't think that Tychocat meant that the 'network' was a free hosting site. He said "Wikipedia" is not a free webhost, as in Wikipedia is not the format to advertise for a company or orginzation. --Zandarx talk 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GRBerry and Leflyman -- Nesher 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian conceptions of race and ethnicity[edit]

Thoroughly unencyclopædic essay based solely on original research and point of view. Anything that such an article might reasonably cover would be more appropriate to articles such as demographics of Australia, immigration to Australia and even culture of Australia. cj | talk 03:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "I'll recommend deletion of this article within the next week". Unfortunately, I never went through with that. The article is perfect fodder for someone to push their cause. michael talk 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This article needs dramatic work, but that is no reason to necessarily delete. I don't think the purpose embodied in the title is necessarily misconceived. It is POV, unstructured and reads (I believe only in parts) like an essay, but I don't think this is irredeemable. A renaming of some sort is probably necessary. Dramatic work, but not deletion unless it persists in this form. Jammo (SM247) 03:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to have problems with POV and original research. It would need rigorous citations to stay. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and OR.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jammo (SM247). Potentially a good article with more sources and clearer structure. David L Rattigan 11:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay. Rebecca 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More references are alluded to than given, so although it was obviously written as an essay originally I think it can become encyclopedic. Ansell 12:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "There's potential for a good article" is not grounds to keep an OR, POV entry. Delete and recreate as tightly sourced article if someone is willing to put the effort into it. ~ trialsanderrors 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten; disregard this vote if the article has changed significantly from this version when the deletion is closed.
    In other words, AFAIC those who think the article is redeemable have five days to fix it; if there is, in fact, nobody who is prepared to do the dirty work, then we certainly don't want to keep it hanging around in its current state. — Haeleth Talk 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR. —Centrx→talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see this being draged up from the OR mess it is in. Unless someone can give me a example of how Australians view race/ethnicity significantly differently for the rest of the Western world, I would be unwilling to change my "vote", regardless of rewrite. --Eivindt@c 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the article at the moment should be deleted, a Race relations in Australia article is needed and this would start that of. --Midnighttonight 04:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom abakharev 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV pushing and OR. KleenupKrew 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- I@n ≡ talk 03:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, POV essay.--Peta 07:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samburu Intrepids Lodge[edit]

  1. Looks like an advert to me Karpada 07:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's factual, a few POV remarks have been changed but I see no reason for deletion. CL8 03:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete, re-listing now. — TheKMantalk 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a nice place, but definitely an ad. Wikipedia is not Travelocity. Fan1967 13:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: most of the article is no more than a copy-and-paste job combining text taken directly from the three linked sources, and what would remain if that were removed is barely a stub. — Haeleth Talk 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think I stayed there when I was in Kenya but that doesn't make it notable (nor do any of the facts in the article). Eluchil404 01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we need to set up guidelines for notability of hotels and resorts. Pascal.Tesson 17:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin of Power[edit]

Delete. Non-notable video made for a school project. --Danielrocks123 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blokkispace[edit]

Non-notable recent website with an Alexa in the 2 millions. Crystallina 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non notable Fram 09:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability I can find. Source links in article are not third party reviews, just advert links. DrunkenSmurf 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. —Centrx→talk 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 01:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barmixtalk[edit]

Non-notable, not ranked in Alexa, nothing given that suggests this article is encylopedic. Crystallina 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non notable: only hit is their own webpage. Fram 09:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find on evidence of notability for this site. In no way meets WP:WEB. DrunkenSmurf 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, possibly Speedy. —Centrx→talk 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. It about a village, it appears, and info is already on hr:WP. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesenje[edit]

Left untranslated on WP:PNT for two weeks. The scintillating discussion follows:

The language of this article is unknown. --Accurizer 13:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:My guess would be a Slavic language. -Fsotrain09 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::The email address at the bottom is Croatian... The article's probably in Croatian. Looks like it might be just spam. Grandmasterka 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:::Definitely all Croatian, yes. — FireFox 12:58, 13 June '06

...Delete unless magically transformed into an English encyclopedia article. Grandmasterka 03:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Hyde[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Given one award for founding an organization we don't have an article on. 379 Google hits, No Google News hits. --Rory096 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the article in its current form demonstrates that she is notable. TruthbringerToronto 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? --Rory096 05:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unclear why a user with over 500 edits should be required to explain further to you. He (she) seems experienced enough to know notability when he (she) sees it. Captaintruth 12:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um. have you seen TruthbringerToronto's afd comment record recently? He/she goes for keep 99% of the time, even in the most flimsy of cases Bwithh 02:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time I checked, this was a fact-based encyclopedia, not a faith-based one. And by your logic, since I have many more edits than 500, my Notability Detection skills are obviously much much stronger, especially using my +12 Wand of Reliable Sources. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that the voter by referring to "the article in its current form" is by implication also referring the the articles numerous citations. What I don't like is another editor's effort to discredit a vots by an experienced user. Captaintruth 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not attempting to discredit anything, please assume good faith. The article at the time had no reliable citations that I didn't mention, and he didn't say anything like "I disagree that a Glamour magazine thing alone doesn't make her notable" or anything, and so I wanted him to clarify. By the way, AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 07:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for using the term "vote". I am experienced enough to know that AFD is not a vote. I know that opinions can be disregarded if discredited (and by using this word I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply using it as short hand for an attempt to make an opinion count for less in determining the final consensus when the time comes to decide whether to delete or not -- it is had to see how you are not doing this). That is exactly why I am attempting to counter your attempt to discredit "keeps" in an AFD discussion in which the keep opinions (is that a better word than "vote"?) clearly outnumber the "deletes", all keeps are from experienced users, and none of the keeps are suspect for other reasons (eg ballot stuffing) and thus the consensus forming seems to be in favor of keeping the article. Captaintruth 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking someone why they voted the way they did is an " effort to discredit a vote by an experienced user"? On what planet? More to the point, you still haven't explained the magical power that allows an experienced user -- at a glance -- to immediately discern notability. Hey, I'm more "experienced": doesn't my "experience" automatically count for more? No? Why not? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its still nice to know why this editor believes the subject to be notable. Wickethewok 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She runs an organization, which, doesn't appear to itself be notable (it's not national (Boston only) see [1]), for which she was given a bunch of second tier awards. The coverage in Harvard Gazzette hardly counts as it's a local paper. Student Leader, maybe - but the article doesn't assert her notability outside of the organization. Does she pass the 100 year test? no. Megapixie 05:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete No news hits is a problem. If your claim to fame notability is a charity it's important to be in the news. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No news hits, but Hyde has been featured in several national magazines -- see cites in article. Captaintruth 14:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have run out of steam, from all I can see, but I added a Weak to my Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mildly interesting, and accords with policy. David L Rattigan 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy is that? Things need to be more than interesting to be included in an encyclopaedia. --Rory096 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Not just a student leader, as this organization seems to be extremely active across Boston. Also, the Glamour Magazine award (an award given by a high-profile national magazine; the magazine published an article about Hyde) establishes a more national notability. Also featured in Seventeen Magazine when she received an award from that magazineCaptaintruth 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both national magazine articles are pretty weak - she is one of 10 people mentioned in the glamour magazine article (she gets a few paragraphs) and one of several mentioned in the article (again a few paragraphs). Personally I think this falls fowl of (WP:BIO):

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)

i.e. the works in question are trivial, at just a few paragraphs in length. Additionally 17 is hardly a good source of information, likewise Glamour magazine. If it was Newsweek, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, etc, I might be less inclined to question it's value. Megapixie 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This smacks of elitism. Glamour and Seventeen are both high-circulation magazines. They are magazines (seventeen in particular) that focus on the demographic that this orgainzation is relevant to. Even if there were 10 people selected, when we are talking about a national-circulation magazine that is particularly relevant to the demograhic in question, such a mention is quite indiciative of notability in the organization's context. Captaintruth 01:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it smacks of encyclopedic importance, and an unwillingness to confuse Wikipedia with a telephone directory or alumni newsletter. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you haven't bothered to respond directly to any of my arguments about these publications. Captaintruth 04:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was merely responding to your inane "smacks of elitism" comment. But to respond, being lumped in with a nine others pretty much defines "trivial mention", dunnit? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but first address mine - the organization that she runs is not de-facto notable per WP:ORG being only local in scope. The articles publicize her work with that organization. Are we saying either:
A) The organization is notable (despite being local) - the two publications back that up.
B) The organization is not notable (since it doesn't meet WP:ORG) - but she is since she has featured in two national publications.
If it's A - then that's entirely a different arguement, which you haven't addressed. If it's B then a couple of paragraphs in two articles spaced several years apart is hardly fame-worthy notability.
To address your point regarding elitism: absolutely right I consider Time, Newsweek, etc. better publications. As to demographics, I'm not clear what you are saying - that fact that she might be more or less notable to a twelve year old girl hardly seems relevent. Does a mention of a computer programmer in a national linux magazine, make him more notable, because the magazine is targeted at his demographic ? Or does an absence of mentions in mainstream press make him less notable ? Megapixie 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from my point about demographics, the fact remains that Glamour and Seventeen are among the top circulation magazines in the US and shouldn't be discounted simply because you happen to think they are low grade. Glamour is #27 in circulation with 2,371,986 average monthly circulation.[2] Seventeen is #31 with 2,034,462. Both therefore exceed the average circulaiton of such well-known magazines as US News & World Report, Entertainment Weekly and Money (to name a few notables). True Time is #16 and Newsweek is #16, but these rankings show Glamour and Seventeen are both in the league of the most widely circulated magazines. None of the Linux-type magazines (or similarly narrow-interest magazines) you mention as an anaology are even in the top 100, so the analogy is pretty useless. As for your "elitism", many (myself, an Economist reader, included) consider Time and Newsweek to be very low-brow and trashy (I wouldn't waste a minute on either, they read like they were written for idiots and just don't dig too deep), so I imagine your assertion that Time and Newsweek are so much "better" than Glamour and Seventeen truly is a matter of perspective. Captaintruth 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it that you assert B that she is notable purely because of the magazine mentions which are pretty weak to pass WP:BIO. You also assert that the Economist > Newsweek (I agree completely). I therefore embrace and extend Ecomomist > Time => Newsweek > Glamour >= Seventeen. Which brings us back to Glamour and Seventeen not being very good sources of notability. And since they are her only claim to notability - it's therefore a pretty weak claim. Megapixie 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my underlyign point is that, if we want objective measures of notability based on magazine articles we should look at the circulation of the magazine being cited and not subjective conceptions of which magazine is "better".Captaintruth 15:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Captaintruth, though I personally would rather see it become an addendum to an article on the organization than a bio. -Dawson 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cited published stories, meets WP:BIO. Aguerriero (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Glamour and Seventeen stories. Although I'll admit that as a Boston resident (and Greater Boston resident since before she entered kindergarden) I've never heard of her or the organization, I'm anything but in the relevant demographic. GRBerry 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student leader, with minor, very shallow notability. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough and meets basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is, she's a carbon-based lifeform. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • now now, not all carbon based life forms are notable. This one, however, is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, with plenty of awards. Royalbroil 00:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Cute, but nn. Hope she gets a free webhost for her resume. Tychocat 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of sufficent notability for an encyclopedia. Fails WP:BIO. Despite awards, she hasn't achieved enough for an article here. Bwithh 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with prejudice - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas city real estate[edit]

Where does one even begin in describing why this article should be deleted? For one thing, the writing and formatting are so bad that it it borders on patent nonsense, and I almost speedied it as such. However, the clear intent of the content is to serve as an advertisement for a Kansas City realtor and/or for a KC radio show that details real estate listings. The article's author states that this article is only the beginning of a longer version on Kansas City real estate. I fail to see how this is the least bit encyclopaedic, and the quality of this article does not make me the least bit sanguine as to what he intends for the future. Charles 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:UTTER GARBAGE ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree: it's a dreadful article. But perhaps its dreadfulness will encourage someone to write a better article on the topic. Do any Kansas City residents who know a bit about real estate read AfD notices? TruthbringerToronto 04:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't exactly want to make me move to Kansas City. Green451 16:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising (username of creator is same as the host of the radio show) NawlinWiki 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chupto[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:NEO. It was de-prodded by the creater with the following comment, "this page is exempt to the rules of the avoidence of neologisms because this page was meant to introduce one." Yeah... right. --Danielrocks123 04:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 G7 per author's request - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-way artist[edit]

NN neologism that gets exactly one Google hit with this meaning outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors; it gets more hits as a euphemism for bisexuality than for singer-rappers (and even then, it gets only three). Delete. Bearcat 04:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is urban black vernacular. Sorry Google doesn't have more information on it, but the term has been around since the '80s, its not brand new. 216.141.226.190 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way in hell that a term that has been around since the 1980s and is common in urban black vernacular would be entirely ungooglable. We need a verifiable source. Bearcat 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable dicdef. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable neologism. --Coredesat 08:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced, apparently original research, and besides - it's a dictionary definition, not an encyclopaedia article. David L Rattigan 11:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable dictdef. —Centrx→talk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. forgive me folks, I jumped the gun and thought the term was more notable than it really was. Antares33712 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the article has been deleted. This discussion can be closed. --Coredesat 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, A7 -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alessando Z. Violo[edit]

Complete Hoax. Brought it up here for an outside opinion. Should probably be speedied. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as WP:HOAX. - Tangotango 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran Smith[edit]

Hoax. Fake claims to have played for Arsenal. Probably vanity. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax -- Samir धर्म 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat 08:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Qwghlm 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not listed on the Arsenal website in the "Youth/Reserves" section, Google search turns up nothing. And while I can't check Football Manager at this moment in time, I'd bet he's not in there either! Obvious hoax. Seb Patrick 09:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:HOAX. Only Google reference to him as a footballer is this page. --DarkAudit 19:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kraus Boelte[edit]

Not notable enough to figure in main WP Kindergarten article - if she is notable then so am I :-) BlueValour 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) BlueValour 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Creator has had plenty of time to cite importance of said individual and has yet failed to provide evidence of notability. -- DrunkenSmurf 18:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Keep Article is now in great shape, I change my vote to keep, thank you HJMG, great job. DrunkenSmurf 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No non-Wikipedia google hits for New York Seminary for Kindergartners. At best, Merge her into Friedrich Wilhelm August Fröbel. Her book, The Kindergarten Guide, Volumes 1 and 2, would be a decent reference there. Ted 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Why merge there, that doesn't look like her husband? He was German, she supposedly started an organization that was American. GRBerry 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This stub would not appear to do much or any justice to Boelte. I say that after perusing EB's long article on this disciple of Frobel, early educator, author and important figure in the kindergarten movement [4]. The nom may or may not be notable. But that, in my view, is completely irrelevant when judging Boelte. Instead, I would appreciate a serious nomination and valid explanation of why we should be less inclusive than Encyclopedia Britannica, or why her book was recently republished after 130 years [5]. --JJay 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is the sparcity of information in the article. While editors who are considering AfDs do carry out their own research the onus must be on the creator to justify that the article has sufficient importance to be kept. In this instance the 'Importance' tag has been on the article for 6 months but neither the creator nor anyone else has seen fit to address the issue. TerriersFan 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per JJay. Just because you don't know the importance of something doesn't mean it's not important. [ælfəks] 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can't be serious with that comment [ælfəks]. Every article must try to establish notability and include links to sources so that readers can easily see why the person is important and not have to figure it out for themselves. I have no idea who this person is and my searches on Google did not come up with enough information for me to see how this person is notable. In addition, the article is one sentence and provides me with zero information on the person. But I guess since you know the person is important I should just vote to keep the article.
If you have evidence of notability for the person, or have more information on her than just one sentance, add it to the article and help it grow so we can include this person in Wikipedia. I will be more than happy to change my vote if the article is expanded to include such information. DrunkenSmurf 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a valid historical niche. Dlyons493 Talk 06:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above - but the article does need to be expanded. See also Google book search.--HJMG 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Have added some info to the article. --HJMG 16:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent contribution but can you source it, please? BlueValour 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it comes from page 229 of the first book listed under "References" which you can find on Google Books. Other bits from the second book, from library catalogues and possibly some scraps picked up by scanning through other search results.--HJMG 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable: has Britannica article, published author back in the day when that actually meant something. —Centrx→talk 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The best outcome of an AFD discussion is an improved article. This is now improved enough that I can say keep, which I couldn't above. GRBerry 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - I agree with GRBerry and I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. BlueValour 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give and get selling[edit]

Biased orignal research. No relavent google hits. Srikeit (Talk | Email) 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. This reads as an advert for a self-improvement service rather than an encyclopedic concept.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no relevant sources for this concept. DrunkenSmurf 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even sure I can find the concept, never mind sources .. BJAODN, anyone? Ace of Risk 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: patent nonsense and spam. It never explains what it purports to be about. Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not patent nonsense so not speediable. Spam is not a speedy criterion. Please chose an ordinary delete or specify a criterion to speedy it under. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent nonsense includes stuff that is "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." This rubbish is worse than that, it's deliberate obfuscation. The author does not mean to give away his tawdry secrets under the GDFL, so he submits an article that's full of puffery but that never gets to a point. I think that fairly falls within the criterion. Smerdis of Tlön 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kershner 07:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all possible vengence. It's nothing but a bunch of corporate babble. Certainly seems like patent nonsense to me. --UsaSatsui 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Everybody wants it deleted, for different reasons. Recreate is up to y'all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bome[edit]

No information given about notability and seems to fail WP:BIO. Crystallina 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "Bome" and "sculptor" pulls up more than 20,000 hits in Google, but this current article appears to be plagiarized from at least a few sites. For example: [6]. Aplomado talk 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article on Bome is justified, I think, but the current text seems to be a copyvio of [7] (unless it is the other way around of course). Fram 09:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate. Copyvio, found on numerous sales sites, probably created for widespread use by publicity/marketer. According to Page info: "Modified", this site, for example, predates (Dec. 2005) the Wikipedia article here. —Centrx→talk 21:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copy-vio per Centrx, I've confirmed his research. Article is to old to qualify under CSD:A8. GRBerry 01:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Keep voters have failed to assert how this is encyclopedic material, although at least one keep voter admitted that he doesn't know what encyclopedic content is. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, nor a translation service, nor a study aid. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of African cities in different languages[edit]

There is no particular reason why an incomplete list of cities in Africa in different languages is in any way relevant or notable to an English-language encyclopaedia, particularly as it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While some articles include the name of a place in different languages that may be relevant to the place in question, there is no reasonable reason why a Wikipedia user needs to know what Cape Town is called in Hindi. If anything; this should be either deleted as irrelevant or moved to WikiDictionary or WikiSource. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful and interesting list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hmmm. As a student of Hindi, and a person who tries to be reasonable, I can easily think of many contexts in which someone would want to know what Cape Town is called in Hindi. As a teacher of ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) at the university level, such a list would have come in handy occasionally for me and very often for my students, who are forever struggling over problems of translating geographic proper nouns. Interlingua talk
  • Delete. Interesting, yes, but not an appropriate Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. Hundreds of cities, hundreds of languages. This is what the interwiki links to articles in other languages are for. Zaian 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to discount the other arguments for deletion but the "inter-lingua link redundancy" argument is specious. First, not all of the foreign language variants have Interwiki pages. Second, foreign language using non-Latin alphabets do not usually contain transliteration or pronunciation information. E.g., Capetown has no Hindi article and the Chinese article does not tell how to render 開普敦 into something readable to a non-Chinese.
In general, Interwikis are very Eurocentric whereas lists such as these have the potential to include important non-European forms. AjaxSmack 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, but I don't think Wikipedia is or should be a translation service, other than in the limited sense of providing interwiki links. With pages like this, perhaps it could attempt to become one, but it would be a very ad-hoc attempt. Would "Food names in different languages" be an appropriate article? I think not, although some might find it useful, but Wikipedia is not only about being useful. It's about being an encyclopedia, which means selecting carefully what to include. Zaian 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Zaian. These cross-language articles cause huge problems for verifiability (OR), and Wikipedia isn't a translation service. If you want to know what Cape Town is called in, say Portugese, then follow the inter-wiki links to the relevant language Cape Town article -- which has a much better chance of being verified and correct. - Motor (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Zaian, and Motor. A list of this sort could go on and on---as Zaian says, "hundreds of cities, hundreds of languages". ---Charles 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zaian and others. Although this is arguably useful, it's redundant with interwiki links, and we don't include all useful information on WP. Mangojuicetalk 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ok, it's incomplete and not so nice to see. But if updated it could turn to be useful.--Attilios 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zaian. -Dawson 17:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor & Zaian.--Isotope23 18:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (like here) because this information was deleted from several articles about cities, based on the fact that they are available in this list anyway. If we delete this list, the information should be moved piecemeal into the individual articles for fairness but I hardly think it's worth the effort; we'd rather keep this list. Also, names of cities say a lot about the history of the counties that speak those languages (eg Hungarian names often reflect German influence, due to historical reasons), they are not just a random collection of data. Moreover, most names are, in fact, verifiable from the interwiki links of the specific cities. Adam78 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This information is much more likely to be useful divided up into the respective articles. I don't think we need articles of List of stuff in different languages. Wickethewok 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the European page discussion. In addition (from that discussion) I add my comment -- and yes, I know Berlin is in Europe not Africa, just subsitute Benghazi and German if you feel the need -- The mere fact that some editors cannot verify some of the contents of some pages (because of their OWN SHORTCOMINGS) is no reason to delete a page. Perhaps, some users would not be in the best position to police that particular part of WP -- I don't verify whether the descriptions of various drugs have the reputed effects on their WP page; I'm just not qualified. Most of us are similarly not qualified, so should they be deleted? All of them? WP is not the lowest common denominator. For quick verification of nearly the entire page, we can always look to the interwiki links to many of the articles on the cities listed; I will assume that the editors of the Japanese wiki know what Berlin is called in Japanese better than I and if WP:ja has Berlin as ベルリン that's verification enough. For the rest, if one is doubtful, you can discuss the matter on the discussion page. But note: just because a source is not in English doesn't make it useless especially when it is the name by which one place is known in another language not some kernel of truth waiting for someone to translate it. The outright arrogance demonstrated by the ENGLISH only crowd never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. <sigh> Carlossuarez46 21:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF please. A vote you don't agree with isn't necessarily arrogant (and isn't necessarily from an English speaker either). Zaian 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adam and Carlos. —Khoikhoi 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary or an orthographic listing. —Centrx→talk 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let me explain. Suppose you wanted to know the etymology of the English word algebra. What would you do? You would of course look it up in an etymological dictionary. That is precisely what an etymological dictionary is for: to answer that kind of question. You would find that it is a word of Arabic origin. However, suppose your question was not "What is the etymology of algebra?", but rather "What words are there in English that have an Arabic origin?", a very different question. At this point, an etymological dictionary would be of little use. What you need is a list. Sure enough, the Wikipedia does have precisely such a list: the List of English words of Arabic origin. (There are also a List of English words of Sanskrit origin, a List of English words of Portuguese origin, and possibly others.) Why is it useful to have such lists as Names of European cities in different languages, List of European rivers with alternative names, List of European regions with alternative names, and others? Precisely because it is extremely unusual, in the universe of all city names, river names, region names, etc., in the entire world, for these to have such multiple names (exactly in the same way as it is unusual for English words to be of Arabic origin). Consider the map of any country, Britain, for example. While London has a variety of names in foreign languages, there are thousands of place names such as Acton, Brixton, Croydon, Kilburn, Luton, Paddington, Tottenham, and so on, that don't. While Cornwall has a variety of interesting names in foreign languages, most English counties don't, e.g. Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and so on. Ditto for river names. And it would be exactly the same if you considered the map of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, etc. In order to use a dictionary (such as the Wiktionary) to find the foreign-language forms, you would have to know a priori which forms to look for, i.e., you would have to know already which place names have foreign-language forms. But how can you know that in advance? In other words, the purpose of these lists is to answer questions such as: "What European cities have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European rivers have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European regions have alternate forms in foreign languages?", etc. These are all very different questions than "What names does Paddington have in foreign languages, if any?" (which you can look up in the Wiktionary), but those are precisely the questions that linguists, historians, toponymists ask. Why? Because the fact that a city has a multiplicity of foreign-language forms has great historical and linguistic implications, and it is the responsibility of the linguist, the historian, and the toponymist to study the reasons why that happened. To repeat, these lists answer a completely different type of questions than the ones that are answered by dictionaries, such as the Wiktionary. Pasquale 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if this is unencyclopedic, I don't know what an encyclopedia is. --Eivindt@c 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pasquale. Aguerriero (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and not hurtful. --LambiamTalk 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translating dictionary (or gazetteer). If you want to know the foreign name for something, or the etymology as above, an encyclopedia is not the place to look. What could be less encyclopedic than something that you wouldn't look in an encyclopedia for ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rationale given here. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of European cities in different languages[edit]

There is no particular reason why an incomplete list of cities in Africa in different languages is in any way relevant or notable to an English-language encyclopaedia, particularly as it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While some articles include the name of a place in different languages that may be relevant to the place in question, there is no reasonable reason why a Wikipedia user needs to know what Paris is called in Hindi. If anything; this should be either deleted as irrelevant or moved to WikiDictionary or WikiSource. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful and interesting list. Cross-language naming issues are culturally and politically important in Europe, and I guess elsewhere in the world as well. Good to have a centralised overview of them in this way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hmmm. As a student of Hindi, and a person who tries to be reasonable, I can easily think of many contexts in which someone would want to know what Paris is called in Hindi. Interlingua talk
  • Delete, per nom. These cross-language articles cause huge problems for verifiability (OR), and Wikipedia is not a translation service. If you want to know the name of a European city in another language, then click on the relevant inter-lingua link on the "Paris" article. It has a far better chance of being verified and correct. - Motor (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to discount the other arguments for deletion but the "inter-lingua link redundancy" argument is specious. First, not all of the foreign language variants have Interwiki pages. Second, foreign language using non-Latin alphabets do not usually contain transliteration or pronunciation information. E.g., Madrid has no Irish article and the Greek article does not tell how to render Μαδρίτη into something readable to a non-Greek.
In general, Interwikis are very Eurocentric whereas lists such as these have the potential to include important non-European forms. AjaxSmack 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Wikipedia is not a translation service, and if articles on other language wikipedias are inadequate or missing, fix those. Lists like this cause huge problems... for very little gain. - Motor (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Greek, Japanese, or Chinese would have no need for a phonetic rendering of something in his own language -- that's something only appropriate to a foreign wiki. And one might know the name of Damascus in Hebrew but not be qualified to write an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia on Damascus. Whether encyclopedic or not, these lists provide information that Interwikis either cannot or will not. AjaxSmack 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So fix it." Fix what? And why don't you fix it, if you (apparently) think it's broken? And then, after you have fixed it, should I learn Irish to find out on the Irish Wikipedia how Madrid is called in Irish? --LambiamTalk 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign city names create verifiability problems? Are you serious? Lists on the English WP do not depend on a foreign-language article being created. Keep because WP allows for lists as quick reference for info established elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Yes, they cause major verifiability problems because of the (mass) cross-language nature of the page. How can I judge the edit someone has just made, when there are (at least) a dozen languages on that page? I've had this problem before when someone added an "international section" to Cookie Monster. People kept adding names... but there was absolutely no way to verify any of it (not least because they didn't provide sources, and even if they had they would probably be in the language in question). How was I supposed to know what his name was in Hebrew? I couldn't even search for it because the alphabet is incomprehensible to me. For all I know, it could be vandalism and/or someone's school nickname. This is the English Wikipedia... we can only rely on verifiablity in English, without extreme hassle (which is multipled when you have that many different languages on the page). That's why I say they can find the city's article, then click on the inter-lingua link and go to the page on the relevant langauge wiki... where the information will have a better chance of not being vandalism/gibberish. - Motor (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that some editors cannot verify some of the contents of some pages (because of their OWN SHORTCOMINGS) is no reason to delete a page. Perhaps, Motor would not be in the best position to police that particular part of WP -- I don't verify whether the descriptions of various drugs have the reputed effects on their WP page; I'm just not qualified. Most of us are similarly not qualified, so should they be deleted? All of them? WP is not the lowest common denominator. For quick verification of nearly the entire page, we can always look to the interwiki links to many of the articles on the cities listed; I will assume that the editors of the Japanese wiki know what Berlin is called in Japanese better than I and if WP:ja has Berlin as ベルリン that's verification enough. For the rest, if one is doubtful, you can discuss the matter on the discussion page. But note: just because a source is not in English doesn't make it useless especially when it is the name by which one place is known in another language not some kernel of truth waiting for someone to translate it. The outright arrogance demonstrated by the ENGLISH only crowd never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. <sigh> Carlossuarez46 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page has, what, a dozen languages on it? To verify any changes made to this page needs an editor (or editors) who can speak those languages. It is a maintenance horror and a vandalism hotspot. How, exactly, do you expect recent changes patrolling to work? I'm guessing that you don't, and you haven't thought it through properly and you'd rather get angry about some perceived snub. Anyway, I'll ignore the rest of your bad tempered rant and just repeat what I've already said: Wikipedia is not a translation service... it is not setup to be one. The way it works, and its reliance on editors to check and verify material added or changed, makes articles like this virtually unworkable and a verifiability nightmare. Someone has to maintain this page when "you" get fed up and leave. Someone has to check the changes across all the languages. It just does not belong here. I'll just add one more thing here: User:Carlossuarez46 has also been on my talk page basically accusing me of being part of some "English-only movement". I would say exactly the same thing about this article if this were the French or German Wikipedia. Articles like this, with lots of translations, do not work on Wikipedia because of the way it is informally edited and checked make it a maintenance and verifiablity nightmare. You may imagine it as part of some grand conspiracy if you like, but it is simple practicality. - Motor (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the inability of one user to read a particular language does not render a fact unverifiable. But I'd also like to echo the sentiment just left by Goldom, below, where he or she cautions against letting this discussion become personal. The article is either right for Wikipedia, or it isn't. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 21:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Motor: You misrepresent what I said on your talk page, if anyone cares about that sideshow that can look for themselves. This article is right for WP for the numerous reasons already mentioned. I don't claim to be the sole maintainer of the article; all editors are maintainers of all articles they think they are capable of. Someone who isn't up on geography or cannot verify a foreign language addition to an article probably is not the person best to take on responsibility for this article, just as I couldn't contribute much to the Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia article you have because I am not a trekkie and have no idea what ranks are merely conjectured to be part of the story. We choose our interests and sometimes I look at recent changes/creations but what I don't understand and what is not clear vandalism -- like the anon who was adding BLAHBLAHBLAH to a bunch of pages yesterday -- I move on to work on what I do understand. I think the number of editors of that page and those who seem to care enough about the article to support keeping it means that if I get run over by a bus tomorrow, it'll still be maintained. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I couldn't care less about Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia, I can still spot gibberish or vandalism... and "I" (meaning anyone on the English Wikipedia) can do a bit of research using google, or read any references supplied. As for me misprepresenting you... I did not, considering your posts here and on my talk page. Furthermore, I haven't claimed you are the sole maintainer. This article needs editors familiar with every one of the languages used... and this is the English Wikipedia. It is not practical because Wikipedia cannot and does not work as a translation service, and is just not setup to deal with it. The fact that it is also, essentially, a near-limitless list is also a problem. From reading the "keep" comment on this page, I get the strong impression that none of them have them have even considered the practicalities of the matter... but such is the nature of AFD. - Motor (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and for the same logic Zaian gives in regard to the similar list of African cities: "hundreds of cities, hundreds of languages"---how would one limit such a list? ---Charles 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Most cities have the same name in all other languages (except for transliteration to other writing systems). Why do some cities have different names? Because they are both old and notable, and because they were notable they were spoken of in other languages before there was a notion of "official" names, and the names used became entrenched of old in those other languages. These entrenched names for venerable cities are the exception, not the rule, and the list is really finite. --LambiamTalk 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor and Charles. Here, all the translations seem to be uninteresting, except as a word in another language. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep. I find it useful and informative. Wikipedia is full of a mess of trash (especially from North American user) that deserve deletion, I can't understand why attention switched on this entry. --Attilios 17:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Motor. -Dawson 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, informative, useful, and assists in English users to cross-reference non-English sources and Non-English as a first language users to find relevant references. And if the list is incomplete, perhaps the nominator can contribute by moving it towards completion than in destroying that which he does not understand. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor & Charles.--Isotope23 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments about incompleteness and verifiability can be levelled at absolutely every article on Wikipedia. This particular article may be seen as an appendix to many articles about the individual towns and cities, and is interesting supplementary reading for anyone studying language, movement of peoples, political history... etc. etc. See Historical linguistics to explore this point. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this information was deleted from several articles about cities, based on the fact that they are available in this list anyway. If we delete this list, the information should be moved piecemeal into the individual articles for fairness but I hardly think it's worth the effort; we'd rather keep this list. Also, names of cities say a lot about the history of the counties that speak those languages (eg Hungarian names often reflect German influence, due to historical reasons), they are not just a random collection of data. Moreover, most names are, in fact, verifiable from the interwiki links of the specific cities. Adam78 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This information is much more likely to be useful divided up into the respective articles. I don't think we need articles of List of stuff in different languages. Wickethewok 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the reason why this isn't in the respective articles is because some places have too many alternate names—I found these pages to be very useful. —Khoikhoi 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful Delete (vote changed, see below - comment still kinda stands) This sort of case... I can see how it's useful, and agree with most of the comments to keep, but even so, it just doesn't feel like encyclopedic material to me, not even as a list. In reply to a few above comment, I don't think it is "arrogant" (And would warn against personal attacks) to want an English encyclopedia to be in English - there are other language ones for just that reason. That being said, it is perfectly reasonable to, on an article, name it both in English and its native language(s). Naming it in every language one can think of, though, seems too broad. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, so, here's a fun story. I just went back to look at this article, and it was a totally different page than came up last time I went to see it before my first comment. I have no idea what I was looking at before, but it seemed to make sense for what I thought I was looking at, only it was much, much shorter. Having looked again, this looks much more decent a list than I thought before, and so now say keep. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To claim unverifiability when this is about the most verifiable article seems odd. And naming an article with only its native language(s) leads to a POV debate in nearly every article Gdańsk vs. Danzig, Kosova vs. Kosovo, Ephesus vs. Efes, etc., etc. In order not to burden each article with every (minority and/or historical) language associated with each city, it seems appropriate to collect them centrally. It tends to avoid the fights, so we can know that what the Polish call Gdańsk the Germans call Danzig, and if the user is burdened by accidentally being bombarded by what the French (who invaded and occupied the city) or Russians (ditto) or Swedes (ditto) and Chinese (who did none of the above) call the city, where's the harm? Carlossuarez46 21:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary or an orthographic listing. —Centrx→talk 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let me explain. Suppose you wanted to know the etymology of the English word algebra. What would you do? You would of course look it up in an etymological dictionary. That is precisely what an etymological dictionary is for: to answer that kind of question. You would find that it is a word of Arabic origin. However, suppose your question was not "What is the etymology of algebra?", but rather "What words are there in English that have an Arabic origin?", a very different question. At this point, an etymological dictionary would be of little use. What you need is a list. Sure enough, the Wikipedia does have precisely such a list: the List of English words of Arabic origin. (There are also a List of English words of Sanskrit origin, a List of English words of Portuguese origin, and possibly others.) Why is it useful to have such lists as Names of European cities in different languages, List of European rivers with alternative names, List of European regions with alternative names, and others? Precisely because it is extremely unusual, in the universe of all city names, river names, region names, etc., in the entire world, for these to have such multiple names (exactly in the same way as it is unusual for English words to be of Arabic origin). Consider the map of any country, Britain, for example. While London has a variety of names in foreign languages, there are thousands of place names such as Acton, Brixton, Croydon, Kilburn, Luton, Paddington, Tottenham, and so on, that don't. While Cornwall has a variety of interesting names in foreign languages, most English counties don't, e.g. Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and so on. Ditto for river names. And it would be exactly the same if you considered the map of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, etc. In order to use a dictionary (such as the Wiktionary) to find the foreign-language forms, you would have to know a priori which forms to look for, i.e., you would have to know already which place names have foreign-language forms. But how can you know that in advance? In other words, the purpose of these lists is to answer questions such as: "What European cities have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European rivers have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European regions have alternate forms in foreign languages?", etc. These are all very different questions than "What names does Paddington have in foreign languages, if any?" (which you can look up in the Wiktionary), but those are precisely the questions that linguists, historians, toponymists ask. Why? Because the fact that a city has a multiplicity of foreign-language forms has great historical and linguistic implications, and it is the responsibility of the linguist, the historian, and the toponymist to study the reasons why that happened. To repeat, these lists answer a completely different type of questions than the ones that are answered by dictionaries, such as the Wiktionary. Pasquale 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if this is unencyclopedic, I don't know what an encyclopedia is. --Eivindt@c 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) repeted "vote" from above[reply]
  • Strong Keep apart from the obvious practical uses and the simple demand for it, there's a good (rather bad) number of disputes and even edit wars concerning the mention-or-not of names in other languages (often fueled by prejudices against specific languages, historical rivalies etc.) in main articles, for which in several cases a referal to this page has proven the only realistic modus vivendi. Another aspects is that de facto the English language Wikipedia had a unique function going with the language's status as lingua franca: other languages mainly refer to the English version, but cannot do so (and often then provide access to informatio worth using in the Engkish wikipedia)) when they don't find the equivalent in their own languages Fastifex 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pasquale. Aguerriero (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm persuaded by the argument of Pasquale above, but I would strongly argue for splitting the list by country and distinguishing them as local name, alternate local or historical names, and foreign translations. -- Slowmover 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and not hurtful. --LambiamTalk 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedykeep. --Irpen 03:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translating dictionary (or gazetteer). If you want to know the foreign name for something, or the etymology as above, an encyclopedia is not the place to look. What could be less encyclopedic than something that you wouldn't look in an encyclopedia for ? Usefulness is neither necessary nor sufficient for keeping articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a self-fulfilling philosophy. If the deletionists get their way all the way, no-one will use Wikipedia to look up anything, because you know you won't find what you're looking for. Then, by definition, all topics will have become unwikipedic. --LambiamTalk 11:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Usefulness is neither necessary nor sufficient" - oh yes it is! Otherwise what is the purpose of Wiki? And it's better than being useless! Folks at 137 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such thing as unwikipedic, just encyclopedic or not. The Yellow Pages are useful, but not encyclopedic; a book of logs and trig functions might be useful, but not encyclopedic; the instructions that come with a washing machine are useful, but not encyclopedic; and so on. Dicdefs are useful, and they get deleted every day because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pasquale and Fastifex. Olessi 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Masterhatch 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please. Tychocat 07:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page is extremly useful when doing research and using non-English and/or older literature. Unfortunately the interwiki linkage doesn't always work, especially for smaller languages. Travelbird 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) 13:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Agathoclea 08:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I've found it very helpful when sub editing articles translated into English. Some alternatives are radically different (eg, Reval/ Tallinn or Dun Laoghaire/ Queenstown) and can reflect political or population changes. Others are more subtle (eg, Arkhangelsk/ Archangelsk or Nizhny Novgorod/ Nijni-Novgorod) resulting from varied conversions to Roman alphabet from Cyrillic or Greek. The page has value and is a central reference point that avoids cultural and national quarrels. Folks at 137 16:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -lethe talk + 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kieran T and Pasquale. --Qviri (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pasquale Riadlem 01:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Folks at 137 above; the fact is that those "cultural and national quarrels" often make this information remarkably difficult to come by, especially for the cities where the other names are vital -- some variants are often edited out of controversial articles. It is an extremely useful list. If someone comes across an article on someone born in __, at Wikipedia or elsewhere, they may not find out where that is without this entry. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Pasquale; moreover, I only fouind the article because of my need for it. Please Keep!Reimelt 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Nick C 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Rationale given here. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Asian cities in different languages[edit]

There is no particular reason why an incomplete list of cities in Asia in different languages is in any way relevant or notable to an English-language encyclopaedia, particularly as it violates Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While some articles include the name of a place in different languages that may be relevant to the place in question, there is no reasonable reason why a Wikipedia user needs to know what Tokyo is called in Hindi. If anything; this should be either deleted as irrelevant or moved to WikiDictionary or WikiSource. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep useful and interesting list. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per the discussions about similar lists for European and African cities (see above) I can easily think of many contexts in which someone would want to know what Tokyo is called in Hindi. Interlingua talk
  • Delete, per nom and my arguments on the other inter-language AFDs. These cross-language articles cause huge problems for verifiability (OR), and Wikipedia is not a translation service. If you want to know the name of a city in another language, then click on the relevant inter-lingua link on its article. It has a far better chance of being verified and correct. - Motor (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to discount the other arguments for deletion but the "inter-lingua link redundancy" argument is specious. First, not all of the foreign language variants have Interwiki pages. Second, foreign languages using non-Latin alphabets do not usually contain transliteration or pronunciation information. E.g., Damascus has no Kurdish article and the Japanese article does not tell how to render ダマスカス into something readable to a non-Japanese.
In general, Interwikis are very Eurocentric whereas lists such as these have the potential to include important non-European forms. AjaxSmack 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. Wikipedia is not a translation service, and if articles on other language wikipedias are inadequate or missing, fix those. Lists like this cause huge problems... for very little gain. - Motor (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Greek, Japanese, or Chinese would have no need for a phonetic rendering of something in his own language -- that's something only appropriate to a foreign wiki. And one might know the name of Damascus in Hebrew but not be qualified to write an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia on Damascus. Whether encyclopedic or not, these lists provide information that Interwikis either cannot or will not. AjaxSmack 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Motor. ---Charles 17:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor. -Dawson 17:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Motor. The last thing we need are unsourced, unverified list articles of Names of Everything in Every Language.--Isotope23 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (like here) because this information was deleted from several articles about cities, based on the fact that they are available in this list anyway. If we delete this list, the information should be moved piecemeal into the individual articles for fairness but I hardly think it's worth the effort; we'd rather keep this list. Also, names of cities say a lot about the history of the counties that speak those languages (eg Hungarian names often reflect German influence, due to historical reasons), they are not just a random collection of data. Moreover, most names are, in fact, verifiable from the interwiki links of the specific cities. Adam78 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This information is much more likely to be useful divided up into the respective articles. I don't think we need articles of List of stuff in different languages. Wickethewok 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the European page discussion. In addition (from that discussion) I add my comment -- and yes, I know Berlin is in Europe not Asia, just subsitute Tokyo and German if you feel the need -- The mere fact that some editors cannot verify some of the contents of some pages (because of their OWN SHORTCOMINGS) is no reason to delete a page. Perhaps, Motor would not be in the best position to police that particular part of WP -- I don't verify whether the descriptions of various drugs have the reputed effects on their WP page; I'm just not qualified. Most of us are similarly not qualified, so should they be deleted? All of them? WP is not the lowest common denominator. For quick verification of nearly the entire page, we can always look to the interwiki links to many of the articles on the cities listed; I will assume that the editors of the Japanese wiki know what Berlin is called in Japanese better than I and if WP:ja has Berlin as ベルリン that's verification enough. For the rest, if one is doubtful, you can discuss the matter on the discussion page. But note: just because a source is not in English doesn't make it useless especially when it is the name by which one place is known in another language not some kernel of truth waiting for someone to translate it. The outright arrogance demonstrated by the ENGLISH only crowd never ceases to amaze and disappoint me. <sigh> Carlossuarez46 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlos. —Khoikhoi 21:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary or an orthographic listing. —Centrx→talk 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Let me explain. Suppose you wanted to know the etymology of the English word algebra. What would you do? You would of course look it up in an etymological dictionary. That is precisely what an etymological dictionary is for: to answer that kind of question. You would find that it is a word of Arabic origin. However, suppose your question was not "What is the etymology of algebra?", but rather "What words are there in English that have an Arabic origin?", a very different question. At this point, an etymological dictionary would be of little use. What you need is a list. Sure enough, the Wikipedia does have precisely such a list: the List of English words of Arabic origin. (There are also a List of English words of Sanskrit origin, a List of English words of Portuguese origin, and possibly others.) Why is it useful to have such lists as Names of European cities in different languages, List of European rivers with alternative names, List of European regions with alternative names, and others? Precisely because it is extremely unusual, in the universe of all city names, river names, region names, etc., in the entire world, for these to have such multiple names (exactly in the same way as it is unusual for English words to be of Arabic origin). Consider the map of any country, Britain, for example. While London has a variety of names in foreign languages, there are thousands of place names such as Acton, Brixton, Croydon, Kilburn, Luton, Paddington, Tottenham, and so on, that don't. While Cornwall has a variety of interesting names in foreign languages, most English counties don't, e.g. Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and so on. Ditto for river names. And it would be exactly the same if you considered the map of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, etc. In order to use a dictionary (such as the Wiktionary) to find the foreign-language forms, you would have to know a priori which forms to look for, i.e., you would have to know already which place names have foreign-language forms. But how can you know that in advance? In other words, the purpose of these lists is to answer questions such as: "What European cities have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European rivers have alternate forms in foreign languages?", "What European regions have alternate forms in foreign languages?", etc. These are all very different questions than "What names does Paddington have in foreign languages, if any?" (which you can look up in the Wiktionary), but those are precisely the questions that linguists, historians, toponymists ask. Why? Because the fact that a city has a multiplicity of foreign-language forms has great historical and linguistic implications, and it is the responsibility of the linguist, the historian, and the toponymist to study the reasons why that happened. To repeat, these lists answer a completely different type of questions than the ones that are answered by dictionaries, such as the Wiktionary. Pasquale 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if this is unencyclopedic, I don't know what an encyclopedia is. --Eivindt@c 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC) repeted "vote" from above[reply]
  • Keep per Pasquale. Aguerriero (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and not hurtful. --LambiamTalk 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translating dictionary (or gazetteer). If you want to know the foreign name for something, or the etymology as above, an encyclopedia is not the place to look. Usefulness is not a reason to keep things; how-to manuals are useful, but we don't have those either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and Angusmclellan. Tychocat 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this kind of list is unencyclopedic. If anyone would like to find the name in other languages they can always do so by clicking the interwiki link in the city concerned. --WinHunter (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Useful and not unencyclopedic in my book. —Nightstallion (?) 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothy (eunuch)[edit]

Previously PROD'd, but the source is slightly off. If it is to exist, then at least merge; it will remain nothing more than a stub. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 19:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trans-wiki to Wiktionary. Nothing more than a definition, no potential for expansion. The source is a well-known body modification site. Ckessler 19:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary Where (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Danielrocks123 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Coredesat 07:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Otherwise, if there is a dictionary for slangs, then transwiki it there. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, no merge, no redirect. This is more bizarre sexcruft, and it's a dicdef that can't be expanded even if it were worth expanding. So what if there are crazy perverts out there who cut off their dicks, balls, and nipples and call themselves a "smoothy." I call them fucking crazy. Erik the Rude 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. Tychocat 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Erik the Rude. This doesn't enter into the decision, but the eunuch fetishists are more disturbing to me than any other paraphilia, including pedophilia, as their fantasies usually include children getting their penis, testicles, labia, clitoris or breasts cut off, almost always against their will. They are often tortured and/or killed as well. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many links to a site with tons of stories like that and a few pictures and videos of baby circumcision, female genital mutilation and mutilated adult genitals (the pictures and videos are usually hosted offsite on members' websites and such, but they are linked to and sometimes loaded on the website). -- Kjkolb 09:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uneasy Delete There is no possibility for expansion, and it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea that it should be removed because you don't like the fetish. There are many things on Wikipedia that are not to my liking, but I don't advocate for their removal. Ckessler 02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. Sango123 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frost Like Ashes[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band seems notable in a Google search (interviews, HM Magazine article, and quite a few lyrics pages), and is almost certainly notable within the Christian metal scene (Note: see the improvements I made on this article so far). —EdGl 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notable for being the first band listed here that doesn't claim to be "ground-breaking". Tychocat 07:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EdG1. The band received over 2 million hits on google, so it certainly seems notable to me. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus to delete, users are welcome to merge - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common township names in Ohio[edit]

This information can be gained from List of Ohio townships. Listcruft. Irongargoyle 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So, whats wrong with that? Much of wiki article info is duplicated but presented in a different way. Dont see a problem with that aspect of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick22aku (talk • contribs)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. Wayne Owens[edit]

C. Wayne Owens shows all the hallmarks of a vanity page. TheNate

  • Userfy and delete per nom. Obvious vanity, along with linkspam, by a non-notable actor/writer/whatever. -- Kicking222 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to myself Can you "linkspam" a single article? I think so, but I'm not so sure. -- Kicking222 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to defer him being a non-notable actor/writer/whatever. He is quite accomplished in his field. I went in and made some edits to remove some of the external links and made a few edits. -- bellobard

21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I do not see any real evidence of linkspam nor would term him as "non-notable actor/writer/whatever". As a worker of the Kansas City Renaissance Festival, I know his Seymoure character is well-known and, frankly, talked about with reverence by long-timers. -- jslicer
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN. --Coredesat 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jackie, Man with Radio (uncredited), Dry Cleaner Clerk, or Popcorn Vendor. Oops, I meant Delete for NN, VANITY. ~ trialsanderrors 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable at this time. Accurizer 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting life, but I don't see anything here that meets WP:BIO. I have no idea if originator is C. Wayne Owens, but based on the edit history, offering a userfy would be a nice gesture.--Isotope23 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am separate from the original author of this material, I'm too young to remember C. Wayne Owens' TV shows, and I do not attend Ren Faires, am not a friend with/family member of/acquaintance of the subject, nor am I in any way what you would consider a "fan" of the subject, and yet I've heard of him and been influenced by him. Just because a person's name is not one YOU recognize or one that affects YOU doesn't make the person NN (which seems to be the ONLY reason why this article is recommended for deletion as "NN"); and the lack of a large number of authors is to be expected of any new bio. --Rimbo
    • Comment Rimbo, I have found that most of the folks who participate in AfD perform their own research before voting on a nomination. Personally, I would never vote without doing so. I think your statements do not represent reality. If you can provide references that would corroborate your finding of notability, we would be happy to look at them. Accurizer 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your suggestion that I had not done research on the subject is false, irrelevant to the point I made and inappropriate for this kind of discussion. --Rimbo 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I did not suggest that you had not done research. In fact I presume you have done research. What I suggested is that you should assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Accurizer 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Ah, my mistake and heartfelt apologies.
  • Delete per nom. I have to say, Rimbo, the contrary to your argument is also true: The fact you may recognize the name does not mean the person is notable to anyone else. And yes, I read the article and checked the references. Tychocat 07:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that merely being notable "to someone" doesn't make someone notable; a co-worker may be notable to me, but that doesn't make him encyclopedia-worthy. C. Wayne Owens has a large cult following within the Ren Faire circuit, which fits WP:BIO. It is difficult to find references on the web, given that the Ren Faire circuit is not what you would call heavily documented on the internet, but one internet reference would be the inclusion of his quotes in several of the Brobdingnagian Bards' newsletters. That he's a significant influence on the Bards' humor is a thing of note in itself.--Rimbo 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment out of curiosity, what part of WP:BIO are you suggesting a "large cult following within the Ren Faire circuit" meets?--Isotope23 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippos Chatzaridis[edit]

Non-notable person, only claim to notability is that he once accidentally found a prehistoric cave. Nothing else is known about him or will ever be known. Compare similar case, created by same editor, recently deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christos Sariannidis Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually, Petralona Cave would indeed make for a good article (notable excavation site of early humans in Europe), except that it's apparently a bit of a playground for pseudo-scientific fringe scholars, and some editors have been spamming POV-pushing fringy content related to it across multiple articles instead of creating one decent one where it belongs. See Aris Poulianos, for a start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable. If appropriate, warrants mention in Cave article. —Centrx→talk 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough notable.--Aldux 23:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. Kimchi.sg 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wyatt (comics)[edit]

Non-notable writer. With the exception of some very short comicstrips (5 pages each) everything listed here has been published in a fanzine form only. ScottNestle 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. —Centrx→talk 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's not in the major league, but he's a published author. - Richardcavell 00:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published writer on multiple occasions with the UK's only major comic book.Vizjim 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not impressed by the "published author" argument, since anyone can become a published author, but I do think he's generated enough of a body of published work to merit notability. Tychocat 07:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I initially failed to see the difference between a fanzine and professional publication. My point about anyone being able to become a published author remains. Tychocat 08:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep His career is embryonic, but professional nonetheless. Aside from being published in professional British publications (not an easy task given the compressed nature of the British comics industry at present), he has been so repeatedly, some instances of which are actually noted on this WP article.
  • Keep He is not just prolofic in the small press (writing, editting and publishing) but 2000 AD saw fit to showcase his work in the 2000 AD Winter Special which was dedicated to highlight the talent of the next generation of writers for the magazine (having previously been published in 2000 AD). So even if you don't wish to count the small press as being notable (despite its importance to 2000 AD which is in turn important to the US comic industry) he is actually a professional comic writer which is notable. (Emperor 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete not (yet) notable. Does not seems to meet WP:BIO. Eluchil404 01:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It might be worth people checking out this. ScottNestle is Artw who is Arthur Wyatt (comics) (Emperor 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep When you're a British comic writer, getting into 2000 AD is one of the most notable things you can do. Needs expansion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, although I am somewhat concerned that the way Wyatt is employing sockpuppets will eventually become problematic. Yamaguchi先生 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Angel[edit]

Delete, this article as seen below has already been deleted once, but someone re-made it. Alison doesn't meet Wiki's standards, she's not notable. --CJ 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus, after discounting invalid voters. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FutureQuake[edit]

Non-notable fanzine. They do a good job plugging it but the print run can't be greater than a few hundred. ScottNestle 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Award winning fanzine, which has featured contributions from established professional creators. Noisybast 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I have contributed to this article as the zine is well known on the British scene - SFX "Top Fanzine" award etc, plus contributors, all argue for notability. Vizjim 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Changing vote (see below) Vizjim 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I hadn't heard of this fanzine, but it seems notable to me. Moe Aboulkheir 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Its biggest mention is "Fanzine of the Month" in a magazine about sci-fi/comic "media topics." I don't think so. Recury 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep God almighty - how many people can Scott hold a grudge against? GET SOME PSYCHIATRIC HELP, ALREADY! Where do I begin with FutureQuake? The contributions from artists who went on to professional work, the professional artists who contributed, the writers who went on to professional work (whose Wiki pages are also nominated for deletion by the same person), the pro writers who contributed (and in Alan Grant's case, also edited), the prominant mentions in international publications like SFX and Comics International, 2000ad, The Judge Dredd Megazine and Fortean Times..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Much as I hate to say this to someone of roughly the same opinion as myself about the notability of this item, do please observe WP:CIVIL. We can't know with 100% certainty that this is the same Scott Nestel, and his stated reasons for nominating the article for deletion as given here are reasonable though (as you demonstrate eloquently) he's probably not appreciated the impact of the title.
  • keep Part of the definition of British small press comics is that they don't have major distribution and circulation. However, they punch above their circulation weight as theya re a bredding ground for the next generation of comic greats (see for example Near Myths which worked in a similar way for talent like Grant Morrison). Quite a few people appearing in the pages have gone on to get work in 2000 AD as well as various members of 2000 AD doing work on the magazine. It is this which makes them notable. (Emperor 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the notability. Are all British fanzines inherently notable? Eluchil404 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No they aren't. This shouldn't be translated to mean none of them are though (it has to be argued on a case-by-case basis) - ScottNestle (aka Artw) has stated that they consider none of the British small press comics publications as being notable but this is rather a broad judgement. Granted anyone can scribble out some cartoons and run off some photocopies which hardly anyone sees and they can call that a small press comic. That shouldn't reflect badly on things like FutureQuake which has become a publishing house producing a range of anthologies (to professional standards) with contributors drawn from the mainstream and small press worlds. It has got awards and great reviews as well as being a place that future talent is nurtured. Which combines to suggest that while not all small press publications are notable this one is. (Emperor 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Why someone should target this for deletion and not other small-press book entries (The End Is Nigh, Solar Wind, etc.) is beyond me. All these books give a home to up and coming talent, and do it to a high level of quality. They have been stepping stones for people to go on to professional work in the industry and are noteable for this alone. Please keep.
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. The answers to the anon's question above is that the nominator is a sockpuppet (see their talk page for more details), and his nominations were targeted at one group, presumably as cover to get his own entry deleted. Vizjim 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure speculation on your part there. I may have hidden my identity when making those nominations, but I assure you they all have very real notability problems when it becomes to WP. Artw 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Suicide (comic)[edit]

Non-notable fanzine ScottNestle 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Island Obsession[edit]

Advertising, not notable. This page was created by User:Dundurn, the name of the publishing company of this book, and until their userpage was deleted (for copyvio) it contained text directly from the Dundurn website about Dundurn (this was noted in the deleted log). Qutezuce 05:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nonnotable, advertising, vanity---the trifecta! ---Charles 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 07:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, after discounting invalid votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pony School[edit]

Another non-notable fanzine. Faint whiff of self promotion. ScottNestle 06:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty neat article and the faint whiff is dispelled by the addition of the not very flattering review. But the company website is a blogspot site?!? ~ trialsanderrors 16:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 03:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The book was one of several small press books to attempt American-format storytelling, as opposed to the traditional anthology-based magazine-format typified by the Eagle and 2000ad (listed as influences in the article), and both contributors have extensive credits with many notable small press and indie books and magazines (between them, they have appeared in the Judge Dredd Megazine, Fortean Times, FutureQuake, The End Is Nigh and MangaQuake among others). The book was also featured prominantly in a Redeye review, and featured in Comics International.

On a completely unrelated note, it should also be noted that 'Scott Nestle' is a notorious serial troll who has been banned from the 2 main official and unofficial 2000ad fansites on the internet (the creators of the book this article describes are contributors to the same websites), and has been banned repeatedly, under several usernames, from both. Going to either website (2000adonline and 2000adreview) and typing the name Scott Nestle (or his original username on both websites - 'Scojo') should easily verify this. This has the faint whiff of the slightly stalker-esque behaviour where he made a nuisance of himself to professional writers and artists on the forums where he was banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs)

No, I'm not "that" Scott Nestel. And I realise that some of the deletion nominations I've just made may be a little controversial with a small clique of people who've invested quite some time in them (checking your contributions shows you to be one of them, as well as showing some "comedy"" contributions to The Losers and Matt Timson which are a little questionable). However the truth remains: I beleive them to be non-notable, so much so that they should be deleted. ScottNestle 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I didn't realise you were the 'other' Scott Nestle involved with the online 2000ad fan community. As you say, it's a small clique of people... However, small cliques of people are the only group that can be relied upon to write articles about subjects outside mainstream appeal - otherwise we wouldn't have Wikis on Star Trek's made-up science of Warp Field Theory, and it's a small clique which can actually write the Wiki on Quantum Theory, I'll wager. It was the somewhat 'focused' nature of the the group of your nominations which confused me. I'll put my hands up to the comedy vandalism, though.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Reinforcement[edit]

PROD tag removed without comment by an anon. Article is on a nonnotable podcast and seems to be basically advertising for it. Delete. User:Angr 06:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reads as an advert for the podcast rather than a discussion of its notability. Discussion of controversial topics such as racism and rape is not inherently notable. WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per  (aeropagitica) .--Andeh 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat 07:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:WEB guidelines. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and redirect to reinforcement. Teaser style advertising is deliberately obscure and explains nothing, which makes it patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure to meet WP:WEB]. Smerdis of Tlön's redirect suggestion in place of this article is a good one, but I suspect it would need to be monitored against recreation.--Isotope23 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just read it. Danny Lilithborne 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I admit I am the one responsible for writing the entry on Negative Reinforcement. Yes, I admit that the main reason behind the creation of this page is to create an awareness of the podcast on the Wikipedia regulars. However, I also wrote it as a loyal follower of the Podcast. I truly believe in what he is trying to do. I believe in every word he says. If you are upset over the creation of this page, please put all on the blame on me, not him. Don't create a backlash towards the Podcast itself just because an entry based on the site was created and violated the site's rules and regulations. If you truly think the existence of this entry causes a disturbance in the balance of this website, feel free to do so. I will not stop visiting this site just because of a deletion. I have been the admin of some sites in the past and it is understandable that the rules of a website must be obeyed. My deepest apologies. -P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pap64 (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 of the debate was No consensus, I looked at the comments, and the arguments to keep were pretty strong. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Berridge[edit]

Non notable fanzine writer. THe one example of publication outside of a fanzine given turns out to be a reprint of fanzine material. ScottNestle 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed with nom. At best, merge to Futurequake, though that is also of questionable notability. Wickethewok 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Fanzine reprinted material that appeared in professional magazine FIRST, not the other way around. The writer is also a published Fortean Times contributor. The nominator has a history of nominating small press magazines and creators for deletion - possibly due to personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.171.123 (talk • contribs)
Actually because I consider them inherently non-notable. ScottNestle 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a professionally published author, even if you don't consider the small press, in which he has been prolific, notable (despite, as I've said a number of times on this page that they are important for the comic industry as a whole and are far more notable and importan than simple circulation numbers would suggest). (Emperor 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep Both Judge Dredd Megazine and Fortean Times are pretty notable, and his work does seem to have significant publication history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus; default to keep. Petros471 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bamforth[edit]

non-notable artist. ScottNestle 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agreed with nom. At best, merge to Futurequake, though that is also of questionable notability. Wickethewok 19:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Centrx→talk 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is a real mystery to me and confirms, for me, the suggestion made above that there is a wider agenda with the half dozen entries ScottNestle has put up for deletion (some kind of fatwah against the 2000AD-connected small press?). Adrian Bamforth is an upcoming professional artist who has drawn a number of strips for 2000 AD including some of their flagship titles by some of their leading writers. This would be enough t make them notable in anyone's book. He appears to have been put up for deletion because he has also done some work for British small press comics (which itself is widely cknowledged as a breeding ground for the next generation of talent - so would count as a plus not a minus). (Emperor 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Amongst other things, Adrian Bamforth has drawn episodes of Judge Dredd and Sinister Dexter for 2000ad.
  • Keep Established professional comics artist whose work has been published in the UK's leading comic title. What's not to like? (Noisybast 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, regular artist for UK's leading comic. Vizjim 14:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helensvale hogs[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable rugby club from Australia. I added the {{notability}} tag about a month ago, and the article has been increasingly vandalized since. I'm bringing it here for discussion, on the off chance someone doesn't feel this is a textbook A7 speedy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This team plays in the Gold Coast and District Rugby Union and are part of a third tier rugby union competition in Queensland. The players are probably a mix of semi-professionals and amateurs. The Gold Coast has a side in the Brisbane Premier Rugby and Brisbane Rugby Union in the Queensland Rugby Union. If we had an article on that competition, we could have a paragraph in it about the Helensvale Hogs. They are probably not notable enough to warrant an article on their own account. Six mentions in the Australian media all from the Gold Coast Bulletin. Capitalistroadster 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CSD A7 (specifically, club), no assertion of notability. I live 10km away and have never heard of them, and know of many other smaller local clubs in the QRU (e.g. Burleigh Bears). Jammo (SM247) 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Jammo. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SM247. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable sporting club. --Roisterer 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- I@n ≡ talk 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Kevin 06:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Useless as a redir. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Countries: Origin of Names[edit]

An attempt at a list of etymologies. Dictionary material, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary already has many countries' etymologies in their entries (e.g. wikt:Afghanistan). At best, these should be one-liners in the countries' articles. —Lamentation :( 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, etymology is not a proper Wikipedia field and redirect per below. Jammo (SM247) 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is interesting to have all this on one page together, I would like to see more, and would add some my self if the page stays given the List of country name etymologies, we don't need this one! GB 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. —Centrx→talk 21:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It'd be keep if it had more than one line of info on it. You can't just start am article and expect it to finish itslef. --Mincetro 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; WP:NOT a dictionary and useful or interesting not reasons to keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of country name etymologies Fg2 09:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Arnzy (whats up?) 09:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a logical place for a redirect and we already have List of country name etymologies. BigNate37 09:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The List of country name etymologies already does a good job and follows naming conventions. No need for a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat 10:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---CH 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 a pile of Keeps - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Du Bist[edit]

NN fancruft Stanfordandson 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Tie Break. Seems like Eurovisonfancruft is notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is no method of breaking ties since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and hence AfD is not a vote. Stanfordandson 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tie Break is the band that played the song, not a comment on the state of this AfD ;-) Fram 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's part of the relevant WikiProject. Before anyone talks about redlinks, they'll be gone by the end of the process. BigHaz 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article being part of a WikiProject is not a valid reason to keep it. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for clarification, is the Project standard that the artist should be included or the song? Imho there's no reason to do both, especially since 99.5% are one-appearance wonders. Put an article on the artist out if you will, feature the song prominently on it, but listing artist and song separately is cruft. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Project standard was to make separate articles for "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [Year]", however given that a number of artists (not all of them winners by any means) already have their separate pages, I think making a separate page for each song, rather than the general appearance makes more sense. What would otherwise appear on the would-be page can then be moved to the song page. BigHaz 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the above, I've tracked down the source for the notability of the song (the protest against its length) and added same to the article. My vote of Keep remains, but now because it's more notable. BigHaz 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - It is a song which has won a national competition, the Austrian selections for the Eurovision Song Contest, which would mean that it satisifed most of the criteria in the songs policy proposal at least. The selection is via some kind of TV show, and is at least as notable as a national version of Idol. Also, I need sources, but during the commentary in 2004 when this song was at ESC, the commentator noted that it was apparently close to being the subject of legal action by the second place group, as the song lasted 3m 9sec? and the rules stated that the maximum length was 3 minutes.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If having a page about the song could potentially subject Wikipedia to legal action, that's even more reason to delete it. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • With respect, you've missed the point of Blnguyen's post. The "legal action" was a reference to the fact that the song was either subject to legal action or going to be subject to it (I'm trying to find a source on that to find out whether anything was filed). By having an article on it, Wikipedia isn't going to be subject to anything. BigHaz 11:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? A song can't be subject to legal action. Wikipedia can be. Stanfordandson 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • A song can very easily be subject to legal action. My Sweet Lord and Bittersweet Symphony are probably the two most famous examples of cases in which the recording artist was accused of plagiarism. As part of the judgement in the latter case, the money earned by the band was forfeit. Also see the case of The Gray Album, in which an entire album was subject to legal action. In the case of this particular song, the fact that it had gone over the 3-minute mark was in fact the subject of a legal challenge. The external link in the article makes this quite clear. Further, I'm yet to see what makes you think that Wikipedia is remotely in danger of legal action as a result of hosting this article. BigHaz 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The recording artists were accused of plaguirism, not the song. In this case, hosting the article may subject not the song but Wikipedia to legal action, considering Blnguyen's post. Stanfordandson 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I never said that - I said that the groups involved in this song was subject to legal action - which caused extra controversy and notability for this already notable song - what does this have to do with WP having legal action taken against it.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And if you want to split hairs about it, fine. The song (specifically whether or not it was plagiarised and whether or not it exceeded the length allows) "was the subject of legal action". The performers "were subject to legal action" and the song "was the subject of legal action". Happy? BigHaz 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete all the Eurovision Song Festival contestants (which would be a pity of the hard work done by the editors). The Eurovision Song contest is one of the biggest TV events in Europe, so an appearance there does give notability to a song. The contents of the article seem verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment - Well, I don't think the latter option to delete all contestants is feasible. The ESC is a major competition and event across Europe and in the case of Marie N and probably other winners as well, she was feted with a parade on her return to Riga, Latvia as well as a presidential reception, et al. Finalists in American Idol are routinely kept, and this is equivalent to winning European Idol, let alone being just a participant. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If merely being part of a major TV event was enough to give an article notability, we'd presumably have to have dozens of editors sitting day and night in rooms filled with hundreds of televisions writing millions of articles about things no-one could possibly care about. Sorry, but that simply isn't a criteria that can be used to prove notability. I'm also worried about the informality of the name 'Du Bist', as this is an encyclopaedia and is deserving of formal language. If we do keep this article, I strongly recommend we move it to the formal equivalent and redirect Du Bist. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it was not "merely being part of a major TV event", it was the winning entry in a nationally televised competition - which would be the equivalent of Austrian Idol. As for the legal action, it was considered by the second placed artist(s) as they believed that Tie-break's victory was invalid.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not quite sure what you mean about "the informality of the name" here, since that's actually the name of the song in question. To rename the article "Sie Sind" (which would be the formal equivalent of the song title) would be silly in the extreme, since that isn't what it's called and neither would it make sense to call the song that. It would be like going through a back catalogue of jazz or blues songs and renaming "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" to "Are You Or Aren't You My Love Interest?" BigHaz 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also suggest that the "dozens of editors sitting day and night...writing millions of articles about things nobody could possibly care about" is kind of what goes on at Wikipedia anyway. You mightn't be a fan of this particular event and its songs/artists/whatever, but other people are. Likewise, there are articles on all kinds of other aspects of popular culture and otherwise. I could argue that some of the articles on actors, actresses and computer games which have even reached Featured Article status are "things nobody could possibly care about", but patently they are.
      • If we do keep this article, I strongly recommend we move it to the formal equivalent and redirect Du Bist. With all due deference, this might be the most clueless uninformed comment I ever read on WP. The name of the song is Du bist, which is standard German for addressing a friend, relative or lover. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is exactly my point. Is Wikipedia addressing its reader as though they were a 'friend, relative, or [God forbid!] lover'? Nope. Wikipedia is not any of those things. Also see WP:MoS and WP:NPA.
          • Wikipedia isn't addressing its reader in any particular manner, particularly not if (as you say later on) the native language of the wiki is English. It's the title of the song that we're talking about. I didn't choose the title of the song, but given the subject matter I would've chosen something similar if it had been my responsibility. The article makes it perfectly clear that it's a song and nothing else. Would an article on the song "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" be construed as the Wikipedia asking its readers if they want to have a relationship with it? I would sincerely hope not. BigHaz 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, I don't get your point at all. If we keep the article, why would we move it to another title? What title, what article name, do you suppose someone will look for when coming here? I don't see anything in the Manual of Style that suggests that we have to use a different title because it is too informal... Will you also propose to change things like Ain't, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, Gimme Shelter, or Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)? Fram 14:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd suggest we move it to Sie Sind. The MoS does indeed recommend against using informal, unexcyclopaedic language, and indeed we put this advice into practice. DXM, for example, redirects to Dextromethorphan and not the other way around even though 'DXM' is the much more popular term, because, while popular, it is also informal. Stanfordandson 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Have you looked at mu examples? They are much more relevant. You give an example of a thing that has both a formal and an informal name. This (a song) is not comparable. Would you actually redirect Gimme Shelter to [[Give Me Shelter]? If there is a formal and an informal name, use the formal one. If there is only one title (as with most songs), use the title and be done with it. Fram 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The difference is that the examples you cite are in English, the 'native' language of this wiki. Since this is the case, the titles lend special artistic meaning that should not be modified. However, most English speakers do not know German, and so the title is bereft of any artistic meaning and, not having any overriding reason to do otherwise, we ought to use the formal version. Stanfordandson 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, notable per Blnguyen. Royalbroil 00:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Please familiarise yourself more with the encyclopaedia before trying to rid it of material. Grace Note 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and obvious keep, per precedent, per notability, per Google test, per Blnguyen, etc. Vizjim 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Jazzed Up[edit]

Contested prod. "All Jazzed Up is a 'no budget', home-made television show broadcast over YouTube and Myspace", from User:Alljazzedup. Self-promotion, original research, dubious notability, you name it. —Lamentation :( 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB, blatent advertising Ydam 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable, OR, vanity---another trifecta. --Charles 17:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost (third nomination)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 99 of...[edit]

This article is about a countdown at a local radio station in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada. Local radio station countdowns are notable in no way. Musicpvm 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by Academic Challenger (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). The author should put it on the Arabic Wikipedia at http://ar.wikipedia.org, if he wants. --Rory096 05:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ميسن ناك[edit]

Appears to be an Arabic translation of the Mason Neck, Virginia page. I think content is less than in the English version. Here is the translation link (Google language tools) [8] Probably should be transwikid to ar.wikipedia now that I think about it -- Samir धर्म 07:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The title says [misən næk], I believe. And somewhere in there, it says what is almost certainly an Arabic transcription of "Fairfax". But that's as far as my knowledge of Arabic script will get me. Interlingua talk 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • twanswiki if it's really true. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwikiHi, I wrote the article, and yes it is a translation of the Mason Neck article into Arabic. I apologize, as I was not aware that Arabic articles would need to be written through a separate account on the Arabic page. Is it possible to "transwiki" it? I do not know how, as I am new. If you must delete it, that is fine, as I have a copy. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu Munya (talk • contribs) .
  • Speedy delete, I guess, see here. --Rory096 04:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kottakkal Madhu[edit]

NN, unWP:V fancruft. Stanfordandson 07:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7, also fails WP:BIO and WP:V. AFD tag removed by editor. --Coredesat 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete per vanity and failure to assert notability. Don't understand how this can be considered fancruft though Ydam 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Bio that does not assert notability. —Centrx→talk 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The artist himself may well be notable; however, the page could well be a copyvio. ImpuMozhi 01:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain but not a speedy. I doubt that he is a big enough name to deserve an article, but others may have valid points to make. Tintin (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have done a rewrite and copyedit. It is copyvio nomore. Added references. I think this bio can stay. - Ganeshk (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - barely asserts notability with the award. Please explain the significance of the award. Royalbroil 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even though I am the nominator. I think Ganeshk's edits have brought this article to an encyclopedic level I didn't believe it could achieve. Stanfordandson 01:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential perjury[edit]

This information is already contained in Impeachment of Bill Clinton and other articles about Clinton. RWR8189 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat 08:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this had happened to more than one President, then a general article covering all occurrences would be useful. As it is, everything's covered in specific Clinton articles, and I think that's where people would go looking for the info. Seb Patrick 09:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Clinton-bashing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Sole purpose of article is POV attack on Clinton. NawlinWiki 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per CanadianCaesar and NawlinWiki. ---Charles 17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is factually true, the reference to Impeachment of Clinton is too long to be a useful Wikipedia article. This is unique situation that deserves a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Dierks (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Articles is not so much about "Presidential perjury" as a particular historical instance of it that already belongs elsewhere.. —Centrx→talk 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the most important quote is already in the relevant merge target. This would only deserve its own article if there were secondary sources discussing multiple cases of presidential perjury. GRBerry 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Gratuitous and redundant Clinton-bashing.MollyBloom 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Comments Thanks for the lesson. The fact that Wikipedia it is a tool for leftwing propaganda is noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Dierks (talk • contribs) .

Yes friend, I'm really a tool for the left.--RWR8189 04:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podana[edit]

Original research, not verifiable, and possible hoax Fram 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Druvianism[edit]

Please try to keep the discussion section neat, tidy and consistent.

  • Delete, Political neologism. No reputable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has the discussion moved to here? What was wrong with the other discussion page? Anyhow, there is really no need to continue repeating the same things over and over again. Simply carry on the former to here. -- Drewry 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Strong Delete, the above Keep vote was made by Drewry the creator of the article. He also runs a website promoting the idea, which is linked to in the article, which contains Google advertising. Article clearly violates article 1 of what wikipedia is not. Lewispb 09:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Google advertising" Which has since been removed completely from the site -- Drewry 09:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel it possible could you persuade me and other users how you feel the artcle does not violate Article 1 of what wikipedia is not, no original research. Thank you. Lewispb 09:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be honored to. "If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites." Firstly, respected is from the view of an opinion however I would say that The World Forum is a respectable online site. "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals" the other sources listed would certainly fall into this catagory as well. -- Drewry 09:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however it should be more thoroughly embedded, as an article, in the whole politics category. HomoUniversalis 09:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete User:Drewry has created his own "movement", a web site for it, and authored a post on The World Forum site. That's it. No evidence that this "movement" is recognized, or even known, by anyone except the creator and his friends. NawlinWiki 12:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because you simply formerly did not know of Druvianism, does that automatically constitute its necessity for deletion? Is not that the purpose of an encyclopedia? To educate, to spread knowledge to other people around the world. I could not think of a better venue for knowledge than an online encyclopedia that can be edited by every single person around the world. I think Druvianism is exactly the thing wikipedia was created to serve. To be a highway for knowledge, to support it and spread it and make it available to everyone for not a single penny at their cost. For the sake of deleting an entire article, something that so much work and dedication has gone into, ask yourself this - "Is it really necessary?" The whole purpose of this discussion is to answer that very simple question. I agree whole-heartedly that wikipedia is not the place for random and nonsensical articles to spread about, that serve no purpose but diluting the already very diluted knowledge pool and draining it of its potency, however Druvianism is clearly not one of these cases. Take a moment and think about this, and do not respond out of passion but rather respond with logic and reason. -- Drewry 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Is it really necessary?" Yes. Every week somebody has a new philosophy or movement or religion that basically nobody has ever heard of, and wants to use Wikipedia to let people know about it. Become notable first. Then get the article. Fan1967 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not doubt that the above mentioned happens regularly and I understand your voice for concern. However this is not the case with Druvianism. Druvianism has about as many supporters as the extreme radical movements, however these articles are allowed to exist un-contested. My case is that simply because you may or may not have formerly heard of Druvianism, that alone is not enough to constitute the destruction of an entire article. "I may not agree with what you have to say, but your right to say it I will defend to the death." - Voltaire. -- Drewry 14:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everyone trying to promote their unknown project/movement/whatever believes, sincerely, that theirs is different. To try to compare yourself with a movement like neo-nazism, the link you posted, is ludicrous. They have tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of followers. You don't even have anywhere near that many people who've even heard of you. Fan1967 14:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is pure speculation and opinion for both accounts. -- Drewry 14:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to claim that your movement is, in fact, notable, you'll need to provide some verification from reliable sources. Right now, Druvianism doesn't appear to exist at all except for a website and a handful of forums. Neo-nazis are in the newspapers and on the news every week. Has a newspaper ever noticed you? Fan1967 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Article is interesting and should remain as this would not be published if movement was not serious. Sources appear to be primary and does not violate the deletion policy. Overall the article adds to general knowledge and that is a big bonus, as encyclopedia's sole purpose is a collection of knowledge. This should not be deleted. Shadow18 13:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Shadow18 is a sock puppet. Lewispb 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You will find you are mistaken Shadow18 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So whoever disagrees with you automatically becomes fake? -- Drewry 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per Shadow18's user page, the user comes from revora.net, one of the few (very few) forums where this "movement" is discussed. I wonder whether there is a posting there asking people to come here and vote. Fan1967 13:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no post asking people to vote in this topic. Again accusing without an evidence. Shadow18 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not accuse. I said "I wonder". Fan1967 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Shadow18 has 3 edits. -- Irixman (t) (m) 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see how this is relevent. Shadow18 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your account was created and voted on this AfD in a short timespan, which tends to indicate WP:SPA. If you are a new editor interested in the topic, welcome, and please give us your input. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok thank you for clearing that up Shadow18 14:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The Druvianism movement is primarily a movement occuring in the Western world." Based on the grand total of 38 unique Ghits, some of which seem totally irrelevant, Druvianism is barely a movement at all. I'm inclined to agree with Lewispb's suspicions about votes above. Fan1967 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates articles 1 and 2. Have to concur that this IS original work and thoughts, which Wikipedia is NOT FOR. Druvianism is not an officially recognised political movement. It shouldn't be here. 88.104.104.103 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)AMH.[reply]
  • Strong Delete, for the reasons already given. The fact that the article is well-written might confuse people into thinking that this is a genuine "movement." The worst thing that could happen is this article becoming better embedded in the politics category. Recury 14:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (and non-verifiable) movement. It's nice to see people thinking about new ways to order government, but a blog- and web-based utopian ideal isn't notable until it's got a lot more than 38 google hits, and preferably a lot of press coverage. bikeable (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Even though the article is well written on its own terms (organized, clear, etc.) that isn't enough for it to merit being on an encyclopedia. It needs verifiability, neutral point of view and lack of originality. That last one might seem odd (why would we only want things that lack something good, like originality), but it's what an encyclopedia does, and it's what makes an encyclopedia different from periodicals, pamphlets and other media of communication. The author of this article wants a wider audience, and I support that. No one here, even those urging a delete, is denying the author the right to express his/her opinions. There are many sites on the Internet for precisely this kind of ORIGINAL research, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. I wish the author the best of success in spreading the ideas of Druvianism, and once it achieves sufficient coverage so that there are secondary (not primary) sources that can be used as citations, the author by all means should re-submit an article on this topic. Until then, I'd like to invite the author to participate in the many other aspects of Wikipedia that need dedicated editors. Interlingua talk 15:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I cannot say I fully agree with the above said, I do fully understand the reasoning behind it. In my effort on the movement's behalf, I will proceed to follow consensus. Druvianism as a movement will pursue new outlets for spreading the ideas stated in the movement, in order to gain credibility and notability. When if in the course of the following days this community finds that the article should be deleted, given that such was decided after fair and meaningful debate, no permanent damage would be taken to me personally - and I feel strongly that the same could be said to the supporters and leaders of this movement. Despite the statements of some, my intentions have always been focused on the advancement of the encyclopedia as a whole. If the decision of this discussion is in favour of deletion I would like to apologize having failed wikipedia as a community. The future of my editions to this community I hope will be prosperous, and I can only hope that no hard feelings have been made as a result of the decision of this article, or the creation of it herein. -- Drewry 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interlignua. Btw, Druvianism refers primarily to the political movement of Druvianism??? ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning laid out by Interlingua with no predjudice against recreation at a later date should this concept/term become more prevalent.--Isotope23 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interlingua. -- Docether 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interlingua. Tychocat 08:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhurabal[edit]

I list this article here for reasons of process and don't vote myself. It was tagged with template:db-attack. On the talk page concerns regarding WP:NOR are given. --Pjacobi 09:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person tagging the attck is notorious for doing so.See Talk:Bhumihar and should not be used to nominate it for deletion.This will only encourage vandalism. Holywarrior 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Holywarrior's version is hopelessly biased. I have reverted it to Pataniyababu's attempted NPOV version. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry it was not my opinion that you may call biased.Infact what you reverted was not in conformity with discussions on talk page.People not seeing talk page should not revert either.Holywarrior 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Plz follow the link to evaluate the deeds/misdeeds of editor,contents were intentionally mutilated to suit the delition criteria [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holywarrior (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Even if it were not attack-like, it is a neologism, mostly dictdef, and at most belongs instead in the Lalu Prasad Yadav article, about the person who coined and politically uses it. —Centrx→talk 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page history indicates that the page was created purely to spew abuse on certain communities. In any case, the word is a neologism. ImpuMozhi 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lalu Prasad Yadav at the spot presently wiki-linked to this article. Fails WP:NEO to stand on its own, but it is pertinent to the creator of the neologism.GRBerry 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, I would like to remind everyone here that the Wikipedia serves a different purpose than you all think. It is not a dictionary where you can find hogwash neologism uttered by a corrupt, technically illiterate, low-profile and nonserious Indian politician. If any low-caste user likes this word then he may have it listed in the wiktionary. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia and has been created to share great knowledge. I do not see the reason why such things should occupy valuable space on the already overloaded Wikipedia server. Another point to note that even if the word exists (though I doubt it), it is an abbreviation and the 'article', if continues to exist (if some ignorant fools have their way), should not have anything more than who was the hick who coined the term and what is the expansion of this word. The vandal User:Holywarrior (who is also a Chandala / Chandal by the grace of God as he has confessed on Khatri talk page) is notorious for cleverly defacing the pages of almost all the upper castes. I find it inappropriate fo him to question the origin of certain castes when he has no sound basis for that. How can he add "historians are not certain of the origin of these people"? He can discuss such things at the repective talk pages of these castes and not on this boorbaal (or whatever it is) page. I would like to ask him: "Are historians sure of the origin of your caste (Chandala / Chandal)? If so, how? If yes, why do you not write about it on its page? It would be better to block him for good so that his dreams of becoming the first Shudra admin gets shattered. Friends, I don't blame him for all this. User:Holywarrior, being from an untouchable caste of India, must have faced discrimination and humiliation from these castes whom he collectively refers to as Bhurabal. Consequently, he has become mentally deranged. Man, get treated for Antisocial Personality Disorder or schizophrenia or whatever you have. I would be back with some proofs of his great deeds of vandalism. VandalPatrol 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whenevewr You are back be sincere to admit You were user:VandalPatrol user:hardinge,59.94.. and related Ips and banned user:WiseAdmin too.Holywarrior 07:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC).Also see [10] Holywarrior 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about deleting Wikipedia/RC patroller-Everyone seems to be having dubious records there.How can one deny affiliation from this and Vnadal Control Units are the first target of Vandals/Scoundrels to get listed there so as to impersonate as respectable editors/admin and also acts as a link page for vandal interaction.I am not a bit amazed to see development on Bhurabal page and comments here.Perhaps this has become modus operandi of vandal groups in which admins too are participating.Sad but true.Holywarrior 07:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take this opportunity to thank user:VandalPatrol for igniting the fire within me.Not only this You have exihibited all the traits what belongs to you and people who would not have been able to know your community through edit wars and encyclopedia would soon come to know about it in better way.If projecting true image of your community was your mission and people backing you,you have succeeded,You have told all what you are and also exposed people behind you in a more categorical manner.Wikipedia is different from other encyclopedia.You exibit your traits here.And the comments in the Box--which actually are not yours,but wiki has given you privilege to express yourself--- All of you have been poorly exposed.People coming to these pages will know Bhumihar in much better way than what they can learn from article itself.Holywarrior 14:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can get back to this discussion, delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Check of "The Times of India" and "The Hindu" online websites turn up no instances of this word. Also apparent attack page. Tychocat 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Mr "Holy" +"Warrior", what makes you assume that I am of the "community" you are referring to? And which community???????? I am here to make the Wikipedia better and I would use my knowledge and intelligence for the purpose. DELETE stupid unnecessary neologism. (NB: Neologism is also a serious symptom of schizophrenia (especially its paranoid form) and other related disorders.) Where is the question of admitting that I own these usernames????? Vandalpatrol 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you will never improve.Do you think everybody here is as stupid as you.Every sentence of yours bears the signature who you are....No secret for anyone who has interacted with you even when you remained anonymous.Have merry time and try to improve. Can you tell why you created this id when you were warned of having created similar one earlier....Traits speak !!!!!!!!!!Holywarrior 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not answerable to anyone including the Shudras. Bhurabal should be deleted as nobody is against its deletion and no point has been made to save it. PandalPetrol 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please take a look at his deed in Khatri page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khatri&diff=56981012&oldid=56977855

PandalPetrol 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another helpful link where he slanders the Bhumihar caste cunningly. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dalit_%28outcaste%29&diff=58211485&oldid=57791312. Please ban this vandal. PandalPetrol 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome user:VandalPatrol with your new id.Let me explain.Edit[11] was rv in which I had added citation from Manushmriti which was erased by an user.I never have indulged in Kshatriya/Shudra edit war.Holywarrior 09:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • [12] Yes I had added these links because they were relevant.Domkatar legacy rightfully belongs to Dalits.Dholbajja version too supported that it should be linked.Because Bhumihar was mentioned in these two links and Talk:Bhumihar had all these elements tell me why should a visitor of Dalit page not be interested in Bhumihar with these elements.I have not done anything cunningly.It is you who have many Ids and anonymous accounts.I always sign my comments and use only one Id.How can you say I am cunning.If you differed you should have gone to talk page.There is nothing wrong in directiong viewrs from Dalit page to Bhumihar page.
      • Now tell me under what authority you have posted {{Block} message on my page.Do you think you will always be able to create new account and abuse people as you like.Holywarrior 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD has gotten way off track with personal attacks, accusations, and so forth. I have tried to restore some sembalance of order. I have changed formatting and removed some sections. Please limit your conversation to the article in question, and do not make personal attacks. And on the article itself, no vote for now. Thanks. -- Irixman (t) (m) 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, I think Holy had created this article to divert Vandals (ref:Talk:Lalu Prasad Yadav ,it has served its purpose,Neology and attack nature not ruled out.Holy should not take offence.Regrets Wmnnzzr 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some action on this fellow called Pandal/Vandal Petrol is desirable.Admins plz take note.Better expunge out his comments ,not tolerable by any civilised person.Wmnnzzr 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirected by MacGyverMagic and Ryulong. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Dagger[edit]

The article is extremely short. Even if it were listed as a stub, there would be not much else to add to it. Any relevant information about the item the article is about was added to where it linked if it was necessary to the other articles. Ryulong 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 userfy & delete. Sango123 17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel sauret[edit]

non notable author: vanity page Fram 09:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and userfy -- author is User:Michelsauret. NawlinWiki 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and usefy per vanity. Seems to have written some books but they don't seem notable unless someone can show otherwise Ydam 12:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NawlinWiki M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO, but offering a userfy would be fine.--Isotope23 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UM Maxx[edit]

Vanity page Dubbedoutgeo27 09:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete um...only 825 GHits. sounds useless. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, there are in fact 0 Google hits referring to this RC car product, the rest are in German where "um maxx" is an apparently common word grouping, and other unrelated things. —Centrx→talk 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt an R/C product perse, its just a Traxxas T-Maxx, that was named "UM Maxx" by the owner. Seriously useless page...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, with discussion over the format to continue at 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup calendar II[edit]

Redundant copy of 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar. (Not wanting to cause offense or anything, but in good faith I would hypothesise that the author was uncomfortable with the thought that I came up with a better, more readable layout for the page, so he re-created his old layout in a new page.) — Timwi 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment. I am the author of the original calendar, but did not create the duplicate page. In my opinion both versions are of equal merit: the 'schedule' looks prettier, but the 'calendar' is easier to read at a glance. I agree that we don't need two versions of the same information, so I would suggest that we take a vote over which format is preferred at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup schedule#Calendar or Schedule and just keep the winner. Dan1980 07:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar layout is much more readable. -- Chuq 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant duplicatec Ydam 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Timwi, get off your high horse. 1) I did not originally make the calendar. 2) It's a calendar. Your layout is hardly more readable. Having it listed as a long list makes it harder to figure out what games are on what day and what times they're at. I think people should have a choice as to the format of the calendar. I guess this is in conflict with wikipedia's policy on "duplicate" pages so it will probably be deleted. Dav2008 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is disagreement on the layout and content ot should take place at the article 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar and its talk page. There is no need for a completely seperate article Ydam 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burninate one or the other, no preference. BoojiBoy 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One layout is quite enough, per Ydam. Sam Vimes 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either one Wikipedia is not sports portal to present info in various forms. It's just data and nothing else. May be poll should be conducted to choose better variant. --Monk 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close early??? may I suggest we close this one early, and continue the discussion on which lay-out to use on the talk-page. --Eivindt@c 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection, but I don't think I should do that seeing as I was the nominator. — Timwi 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless a strong argument against this arises within the next 24 hours, I will close this one early as a speedy delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See other users comments. SteveGOLD22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, current form at 2006 FIFA World Cup schedule is much more readable. This "calendar" format has little encyclopaedic value in the future -- will users read this format two or three years in the future? My guess is probably not. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. They will prefer to look at a chronological list, IMHO. If further debate ensues, enlist a straw poll (but in my opinion, it won't go to that). Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already started a straw poll on Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup schedule, feel free to comment on which lay-out to use there. --Eivindt@c 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with IanManka above. Calendar formats, though handy for current events, are not best for historical documentation. -- MrDolomite 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirected to Sky One as plausible search term. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 12:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky One Logos[edit]

Merged with Sky One. This page now not needed Alexj2002 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CSD-A7. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 13:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Essex Zapatistas[edit]

Non-notable, vanity article Wnjr 11:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per csd A7 failure to assert the importance or significance of its subject Ydam 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ydam. Moe Aboulkheir 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, CSD-G1. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hanser[edit]

Non notable / hoax: Berlin speech was made by Reagan... Fram 11:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like an obvious hoax to me Ydam 12:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (and so tagged) as patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per NawlinWiki StuartF 14:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as self-referential (and a cross-namespace redirect in all but name). Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof[edit]

Disambiguation page with only one entry. This was deleted twice when it was a redirect from main space to userspace. I consider this as an opportunity to discuss whether such a redirect (in a form or another) should stay, once and for all. - Liberatore(T) 11:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is just a blatant attempt to circumvent a ruling on crossnamespace redirects. IMO disambig pages like this with only one entry should be considered as redirects as thats essentially what they are Ydam 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just get rid of it now for the obvious reason that, as Ydam said, it's a blatant attempt at avoiding WP rules. The creator of the article, User:Mboverload (who should clearly know better), in the edit history, even states: "Since crossnamespace redirects are not allowed I'll just use this disambig page." -- Kicking222 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cross namespace disambiguations are fine as long as there's something to disambiguate between. Dab pages with single entries are very much deleteable. Speediable in my opinion, but I'll leave this alone, so we get concensus once and for all. - Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wont comment on the cross name disambiguation, since all I know is that VandalProof is a useful tool created by one of the wikipedia users. But since it is a dab page with only a single entry, its pretty much deletable. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. —Lamentation :( 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P McCabe[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion as A7, but the text may be asserting notability within a limited area - ie schoolboy Rugby Union. It would be useful if people with knowledge of this area (or willing to do a bit of research) could comment. Technical nomination - no opinion from me.➨ ЯЄDVERS 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and so tagged - all it asserts is that he's a good high school rugby player. NawlinWiki 12:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually asserts notability as a national player. Ansell 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy Neutral so far. with note about lack of notability. It would hurt the user to speedy the article, it will not destroy Wikipedia by staying there while discussion is continued. Ansell 12:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it stays, please oh please follow Naming conventions and rename it to Patrick McCabe (rugby player). - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It actually asserts notability as a national player. Ansell 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think playing in the national schoolboys team is quite enough. JPD (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it feasible to have decent articles about national schoolboys teams as a whole? How are National Under 21 teams thought of on Wikipedia? Ansell 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete asserts notability, but not credibly. We have no deadline, let's see if his career fulfills the early promise. Just zis Guy you know? 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but no bias against recreation of article if he makes more of a name for himself in Australian rugby such as making a Super 14 team. I removed the speedy tag as playing for Australia is an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable at present, come back some other time. Jammo (SM247) 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but non-notable at this stage. According to the article, his highest achivement to date is to have played in one Australian Schoolboys team as a substitute, which I'm sure is a huge personal accomplishment but IMO, not encylopaedic material. I'd also have no objection to recreation at a later date after he achieves a few more career milestones. -- I@n ≡ talk 03:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this page, it deserves to stay, one day he'll be playing first grade and Super 14 and then I'll update it. And there was already a 'Patrick McCabe' and I didnt know how to do the entry, so could someone change the title to the full name, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlesnake6646 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment He is not notable at present, despite any future likelihood of notability. Inchoate notability is simply not enough. Jammo (SM247) 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn. - Longhair 03:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable bio. Kevin 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 OR nonsense, copyvio pschemp | talk 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovestigma[edit]

Original research, author's personal guide to overcoming a broken heart NawlinWiki 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Mooney[edit]

I can't see why this person is especially notable. As well as what's in the article, she's co-authored a few minor books, but that's about it. A bit iffy 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I'm sure she's a motivated teacher, but she doesn't quite pass the average professor test. — RJH (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately not notable enough unless it can be further asserted. Jammo (SM247) 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. The sole keep comment did not address the salient points for deletion raised by Tangotango. Kimchi.sg 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverland Life FM[edit]

notability in question ackoz 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only 12 Google hits, no assertion of notability. - Tangotango 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, rural radio station, not notable. Jammo (SM247) 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There is a pretty strong precedent for keeping licensed terrestrial radio stations on wikipedia. Just because it's "rural" does not mean it's not notable. -- Randomgenius 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Shim[edit]

Only going to play a small part in a future Harry Potter film is the only thing notable, nothing else. Andeh 12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Perhaps she may be a minor mention in the respective Harry Potter article in the future, but for now, nn. --Arnzy (whats up?) 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. and in future may warrant a redirect to Harry Potter. --Wisden17 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CSD-A6 attack page and CSD-A7 no (true) assertion of notability. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burnett[edit]

This is either a joke or an attack page. Google places the subject as a student at Leeds University StuartF 12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I originally placed the {{db-bio}} and {{hoax}} tags, but I accept that an AfD vote is probably a better route. The reason for the hoax tag wasn't that the person didn't exist, but that the events attributed to them seem unlikely - particularly as a Google search turns up nothing. Even if it's not a hoax, they're clearly not notable, which is adequate grounds for deletion. But it seems to me to be not only a hoax, but a possible attack page. Seb Patrick 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Tulbure[edit]

NN. Some guy who ran a website killed himself. 503 google hits. Moe Aboulkheir 14:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 5k ghits for an exact search of his name and 1200 hits for his alias "Maximus Illuminati". He also founded 9 conspiracy theory type websites.[13] . Solomon also has 4 books on amazon.com. Might be a loon, but he sounds like a notable loon. Just look at all the personal websites about him. ---J.S (t|c) 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the 503 was derived from searching for "Solomon Tulbure" through google.co.za, which shouldn't give wildly different results from google.com, but i guess 503 vs. 5000 is pretty different. Regardless, my vote stands. A google search for my name, "Moe Aboulkheir", comes up with roughly 1k results, and I am far from notable. Moe Aboulkheir 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. This is an obituary, not a WP article. Tychocat 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==COMPO bags== and Compobag[edit]

nn product, and a page which is blatant advertising Wisden17 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd like to see an article on decomposable plastics, though. -Obli (Talk)? 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it seems to exist already: Bioplastic -Obli (Talk)? 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it, I was just about to say what about the Bioplasitc page! --Wisden17 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "COMPO bags" and then redirect to Bioplastic. ---J.S (t|c) 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hardly seems worth it. COMPO bags is nn, accoriding to both WP:CORP and WP:WEB. the product itself seems hardly that ingenious, and the link to Bioplastic seems unnecessary. --Wisden17 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Coredesat 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is also an identical copy at *COMPOBAGS or COMPOST BAGS which should share the same fate as this one. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Would you suggest letting this AfD close then putting that page on CSD, or prod deleting it? It seems prudent to let this AfD close first before doing anything though. --Wisden17 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable for the closing admin to handle both articles since they are identical (presumably deleting them considering the discussion so far). But if not, I will just prod the remaining one. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of Compobag - does not actually contain a link to a commercial site. Speedy delete of ==COMPO bags== of course. (I moved *COMPOBAGS or COMPOST BAGS to Compobag and then deleted the redirect.) -- RHaworth 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete n-n product; advertising. Inner Earth 14:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T.V. Shows that are Considered to Be The Greatest Ever In Their Particular Genre[edit]

I am sure there are people out there that would agree that some of these shows are the best in their genre, but this article cites no sources and is therefore a piece of original research and should be deleted. Was prodded, but prod tag was removed. Indrian 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, NPOV. BoojiBoy 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncited, therefore OR, POV. 23skidoo 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NPOV in absoluteness. --DennyCrane Talk 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This topic could never possibly be NPOV StuartF 14:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. RedRollerskate 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, POV bogdan 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced, POV, OR, horribly USA biased and any number of other easons. Keresaspa 15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this original research. As far as I can tell this is a monograph - what a waste of someone's time. Just zis Guy you know? 15:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even for someone who pretty much hates TV, I like this article. It's a fun, conversation-provoking piece which happens to have no place on Wikipedia for all the reasons mentioned above. Perhaps the author could start over. (FEEDBACK from more experienced editors would be appreciated for what I'm about to write: is it acceptable in Wiki-policy for me to urge the author to do what I'm going to urge s/he do?) Write something on "Innovative American TV Shows in the Major Genres" but then find an already existing article to include it in, rather than having a stand-alone article. In writing something like this, you'll have to be very careful to use NPOV and to avoid OR. The best way to do both, most likely, is to make ample use of citations to reputable publications. Get half a dozen academic books on American TV and cite them for each show that you mention. Interlingua talk 15:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another reason why someone should start Wikilistmania. ~ trialsanderrors 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and so many other wonderful comments above. ---Charles 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced comments saying 'considered to be' is the definition of WP:WEASELMarkeer 17:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, and reasons above. Ignores recognized classics like The Twilight Zone, Texaco Star Theater, Your Show of Shows, etc. Calling The Andy Griffith Show a Drama is unusual, as is failure to mention Don Knotts.
  • Delete per all above. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Interlingua. It's an interesting article, but not Wikipedia material, tho I wouldn't be opposed to a List of genre-defining TV shows, if it was well-sourced. jgp (T|C) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, fails WP:NPOV, heavy USA bias. --Coredesat 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsalveagable in present form, BUT perhaps something like Films that have been considered the greatest ever could be made for each country and within in each genre in that country, using polls, awards, universal critical acclaim etc won as criteria (e.g. United States television shows that have been considered the greatest ever (verbose as it is). This page however is pure OR and should go. Jammo (SM247) 23:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hyperbole, weasel words, POV, OR, and other reasons above. KleenupKrew 10:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, violates almost every possibly guideline there seems to be i would say :D - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it has two redirects to it with similar names that can most likely be deleted as well. Created by the same user, no previous content, and not linked to from anywhere within wikipedia. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Thinking Class Humans[edit]

Notability question, no hits on google —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ackoz (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, and no Google hits, perhaps surprising for a group of engineers. - Tangotango 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be nonsense. (Note the following quote):

However one must be wary for there are grave dangers that lurk in The Holy Place. Places where the sane, dare not tread for fear that one's very sanity could be rent asunder.

Delete. Em-jay-es 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonnotable, OR, Nonsense---yet another trifecta. ---Charles 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mmmyeah, all of the above. -- Docether 19:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's nonsense, but not patent nonsense, unfortunately. Danny Lilithborne 20:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tangotango. ... discospinster talk 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for patent nonsense. --Coredesat 22:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After looking over WP:PN, I think this is patent nonsense, and have changed my vote. --Coredesat 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Speedy delete as per above. Danny Lilithborne 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 15:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Humberside[edit]

Delete unencyclopedic, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info and contact information - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete part of it was copy and pasted from here[14]. Extremly unencylopedic, violates WP:NOT as it appears to be an attempt at promotion. Yanksox (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its no differant from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_Leicestershire and that has been alowed!!!!!!!!!!!!! plus its only been up LITRALY 2 seconds and your submiting it for deletetion! the site will never grow if you dont let other people come along to make amentments to it.Phil4071 talk
    • This AfD will go five days. Plenty of time for anyone to advocate for retention. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads like an ad, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. --Coredesat 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is unencyclopedic as it stands but it should be improved. There is a place for articles about Scouting at the County level in UK, State level in the US and Australia, Province level in Canada, etc. but not at lower levels. --Bduke 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned it up and made it rather like the articles for other Scout Counties in the UK, but it needs more wikipedia information as many of the other County articles now have. --Bduke 02:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it no longer reads like an ad. --Coredesat 05:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Bduke's rewrite, problems identified by nom seem to be fixed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No longer vio of WP:NOT, nor ad-like, and now wikified. Is now simply a stub that needs expanded. Rlevse 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. It may or may not read like an ad, but there's no notability given or implied. Tychocat 08:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trae rapper[edit]

Trae is deleted. I don't know why (I don't know how to access the discussion for that, if any), but I assume the same reasons apply here. If this article, on the other hand, can stay at Wikipedia, then I propose to redirect it to Trae and to move the contents there. Fram 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trae, then G4'd by me, according to the history. This article is somewhat different from the last version - that was a five-star review lovefest - so I don't think G4 would do it again, per se. Better to do this slowly and remeasure the chap against WP:MUSIC. If it fails, delete and protect just like the other versions. If Mr Trae has now achieved WP:BAND standards, then follow nominator's advice on replacing Trae. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lots of Google hits, but nothing there or in the article asserts notability. --Coredesat 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Li Ching-Yuen[edit]

Is this a real 250-year-old-ian or just a longevity myth?? Georgia guy 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a longevity myth. The oldest person for whom there's documented evidence is Jeanne Calment, and she was 122. Since this is actually a Chinese tradition and not somebody goofing around, I'm revising my vote to Keep. RedRollerskate 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept but substantially re-written. This case is the Chinese version of 'Methuselah'. As such it should be kept, but only as a longevity myth. This does need to be seriously re-written to reflect the FACTS. → R Young {yakłtalk} 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with rewrite, per Ryoung122. hateless 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per above. --Coredesat 05:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ran tan band[edit]

Non-notable local band. IceCreamAntisocial 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The picture on the page is a blantant copy-vio. Yanksox (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 316 google hits? Get rid of this. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. -- Scientizzle 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; Delete as non-notable. --Satori Son 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although featured on allmusic.com [15], I could not find anything to assert their notability, except mention in a German folk magazine. No albums released, either, as far as I could tell, and no tour info. --Joelmills 03:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviniti[edit]

Google gets precisely 12 hits for Avinity CMS. No evidence of market share, innovation, widespread coverage in independent media etc. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have spelt the name incorrectly. try a google search for Aviniti CMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jascam (talk • contribs)
  • Alright, done. 349 results without quotes, 148 with. Well, I'm convinced. Oh, wait, I'm not. Article needs to assert some serious notability, or it's delete for me. Seb Patrick 14:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Even spelled correctly, Google gets 390 hits, 27 unique. There are tons of CMS products. this one doesn't even remotely look like a prominent one. Fan1967 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blah-quality material, blah-relevance level. --Attilios 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like Attilios's style, but I'll go with Fan1967's more diplomatic take. -- Docether 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gohulan[edit]

..
  • Prod removed. NN neologism. 0 results on Yahoo -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 13:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm new to this. What does the previous comment mean? I think this article should be kept as it seems to be getting developed. Lets wait and see. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.128.85 (talk • contribs) .
prod is proposed deletion, nn is non-notable, and neologisms are neologisms. --TeaDrinker 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to above: Let's not. Delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Goldom. --TeaDrinker 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I placed the original prod. This article is not "being developed". Editor is experimenting with formatting, but should stic to the sandbox. StuartF 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in a Melbourne car park. Fan1967 15:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a really bad idea for an article. Just zis Guy you know? 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a (carpark) one day, including nonnotable neologisms like this one. -- Docether 19:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This word is widely used by University students in Melbourne, Australia! Wikipedia is mean to be a global resource — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamazingau (talk • contribs)
    • It's still not notable and violates policy (see WP:NFT, WP:NEO). Wikipedia is not meant to be a breeding ground for silly college fads. Danny Lilithborne 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a fad, it is a well known term used by University students in Australia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamazingau (talk • contribs)
        • Delete No, it isn't, speaking as an Australian university student and familiar with many others. It is probably limited to Melbourne. Get rid of all stoner neologisms. Put it on UrbanDictionary if you want to publish spurious and obscure words nobody else uses. Jammo (SM247) 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do we need to start a petition to prove that this is a commonly used term in Melbourne? Wikipedia is meant to reflect global values, terms etc. IS it not?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamazingau (talk • contribs)
            • Comment Yes, you do have to prove it is a commonly used term, because the weight of evidence is against you. I might add that this is not a vote and that unsigned IP's adding keep comments do not add anything to the consensus with their witticisms. Jammo (SM247) 04:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no mentions of this term in the Australian media at all and based on the nomination it hasn't got much presence on the Internet. I doubt that its usage is widespread in Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 23:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSpeaking as a uni student from canberra usage of the word gohulan is rife at the ANU. Even the international students are picking it up. Sounds like some of the nonbeleivers need to gouhlan it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgand1 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: I have heard the name Gohulan being used before as both a person's name (Google "gohulan") and as a popular Melbourne based word. True, it is not in the dictionary -- but if Wikipedia is trying to define terms across the world, maybe it should let this article develop. It seems that the author is new to Wikipedia, and might try the sandbox approach. Give it a fair shot -- they're probably getting gohulan'd right now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.122.135 (talk • contribs)
  • Google only finds the word as an Indian name; not one single entry for the word in this context. Wikipedia only keeps articles that can be verified from reliable sources, and there are none. Fan1967 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Universities are a highly reliable source. Do are reverse look up on 128.250.122.135 - seems to be from Melbourne University. Another University student who uses the term. It could be even a Gohulan'd academic... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamazingau (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Universities are. Individual uni students aren't. Jammo (SM247) 04:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Danny, I am not a Melbourne University student... How do you derive sockpuppet from that? If you read the above you would have discovered that I am infact a Swinburne University student.
    • I'm only seeing two individuals trying to defend this article here; four if you believe that the anons are different from the account holders (I don't). And even then, I don't necessarily believe that there's more than one person involved here; people go to more ridiculous lengths to perpetrate hoaxes all the time. Danny Lilithborne 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Danny, what your saying is that I have traveled considerable distances around Melbourne today to use internet connections on separate IP addresses to post on this discussion? I have much better things to do than that. Only you have the time to sit on the internet all day dreaming up absurd circumstances. Perhaps you need to get out of the house mate! You could be experiencing mild psychosis! I have no idea who the other people posting are but they have clearly heard of the term gohulan before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainamazingau (talk • contribs)
        • I'm saying people have hacked IPs before to make it appear as though different people support XYZ article, and it wouldn't be the first time. However, the more likely scenario is that the guy who created the article told a bunch of his pals to come here to save it. Whatever, it's gonna get deleted anyway, so my part in this discussion is over. Danny Lilithborne 08:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm from Monash i've heard gohulan being used before. can't say i knew what it meant before now tho. Theres promoter at a few nightclubs as well that puts his guestlists in under this alias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.55.177 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The word is a neologism. No matter how many australian universities it is common around. Even if it were an established word it would not be acceptable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ansell 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The very structure of the article is a dicdef - even if it is verifiable and notable (which it isn't, personal testimony of uni students is not enough), it belongs on UrbanDictionary as slang and not Wiktionary. Jammo (SM247) 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no evidence of wide usage. - Longhair 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I@n ≡ talk 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable & a dictionary definition to boot. --Roisterer 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up at uni one day. --Canley 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO, bye bye. Librarianofages 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nn-bio, made no assertion of notability. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Boombastik[edit]

The page seems like a completely non-notable bio, and it's a totally self-promoting vanity page to boot (check out the username it was created by). However, it attempts to assert notability, so I don't think it's a candidate for speedy deletion. I do, however, think it fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Seb Patrick 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. SomeStranger(t) 14:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I've also marked as {{nn-bio}}, because although it asserts notability those assertions obviously fail WP:V. I don't think an administrator would object. --Chris (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bunger[edit]

Is this guy notable enough? RedRollerskate 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I don't think he is, no. Google turns up about 1700 hits for "Erik Bunger", but most of those seem to be a musician. Turn that into "Erik Bunger" soldier and you get 17 reports on him, none of which appear to come from major media outlets, suggesting that his "campaign" isn't huge. Someone else might come up with some more compelling sources to assert his notability, but at the moment it doesn't look too strong. And if it's kept, the page desperately needs Wikifying. Seb Patrick 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Interestingly the only major paper to report on him seems to be Le Monde. Eluchil404 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even at the moment, the only pages that link in are these AFD pages. --KJPurscell 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete One citation in a French major newspaper does not make notable, even though it looks like it was a profile.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep (no consensus). The article here is a fairly long one, and I cannot see any good way of merging this without removing about 90% of the article. The closure here does not mean that the article cannot be merged, but only that I will not do so. Regarding the possible merge targets, I think that Internet slang is a poor merge target since that article is about internet slang in general, not about specific terms. List of internet slang is perhaps better but that article only has short descriptions. Leet is also a reasonable merge target, but would again require serious trimming. I will leave that discussion to the talkpages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Yes it could be included in other articles like Internet Slang List_of_Internet_slang but to have its own page is excessive. DennyCrane Talk 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ZOMG! Delete! slang dictdef, and of dubious provenance at that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into internet slang, since very few slang words have their own article. And the only ones that do are extremely notable, like LOL. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 15:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep/merge because this article has a good amount of background information, rather than just a definition. It is also among the more-notable slang terms. A merge is sufficient, provided the merge includes the background info, not just a dicdef (cause really, that info is what warrants any inclusion at all). -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing bolding to emphasize I'd prefer a keep, but would settle for merging. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems notable, but sounds like WP:OR through and through. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Have to agree with you there, signifigant amout of OR.--DennyCrane Talk 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep contains a lot information, no need to merge. Not a dictdef by any stretch of imagination.  Grue  18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leet.--Andeh 20:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there is a brief mention of it there, I would be confused if that redirect happened to me as a regular user. If this does come out as a merge/redirect, I think internet slang is a better target. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does have good information, and the term is very popular. Danny Lilithborne 20:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to internet slang, taking care to include background info, per Goldom. Jumbo Snails 05:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist raises a good point, changing my vote to Keep. Failing that, merge to List of Internet slang rather than simply Internet Slang, per DennyCrane. Jumbo Snails 02:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As above Artw 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article contains substantial information about the term in question far exceeding the scope of a dictionary definition and is of much greater length than would be appropriate for inclusion in a general article on slang. I initially found the article trying to figure out if there was any specific meaning to the word. Had it merely redirected an article on slang in general, I would have found it utterly useless, as I already knew that it was internet slang at that point. If we want to break out the ever-popular Google-search-as-metric-of-importance, ZOMG yields over 1.8 million hits. -- Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this rationale - it may not be as objective as the one I said above, but to be honest, this is my case as well. Back when everyone was saying this, I had no clue what it meant or where it came from, and you can just imagine trying to find that info on google or someplace. (This is not to say it is OR to be on wiki, it does appear verifiable). This was where I finally found out its history. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with another article. WP:NOT and WP:OR, etc, but this is quite a common phrase... -Aknorals 09:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable on the internet and a useful article. 80.41.239.195 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet slang or somesuch. GChriss 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With Internet Slang for preference. The entymology of emergent forms of syntax should be preserved as beas as possible, especially given the brief nature of their fame before becoming the basis of other terms, as has happened with other internet-based terminology and memes. This might seem unimportant now, but may become important later - especially if someone decides to write a paper on certain terms and their online genesis.
  • ZOMG MERGE!!!!!1111 - per above. --GeorgeMoney T·C 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to ZOMG KEEP !!!!!!!!!!1111111111 oneoneoneone elevendyone onehundredeleven 1111 2(50(432))/2(2(50(432)))(500/pi)(15/23)+25(5)-125/(15/23) - I am always using this because I forget what it means. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ZOMG KEEP I needed to look up Zomg and here it was. The article is useful and shouldn't be delted or merged. Ayavaron 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leet. If you think having "its own page is excessive", then you should propose a merge, not a deletion. --Zoz (t) 20:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for the love of dog, what does it have to do with leet???  Grue  20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • From ZOMG:"ZOMG is a derivative of the Internet shorthand term OMG" - from leet:"leet is defined as the corruption or modification of written text". From ZOMG:"It is most likely representative of carelessly pressing the left shift key to capitalize "OMG" and hitting the adjacent "Z" key in the process." - from leet:"A similar derivation comes from the location of the Z key next to the left shift. When typing words such as OMG or OMFG, it has become common to instead type ZOMG or ZOMFG to simulate the accidental typing of the Z in an effort to press the shift key." Hope this helps. By the way, Leet article mentions OMG 10 times. Maybe it would be better to merge zOMG into God (expression) (where OMG links), or to keep the article, but it is definitely related to leet. --Zoz (t) 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Internet Slang. ZOMG is a notable expression, but not notable enough to warrant its own article. Kariià 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whaley House[edit]

Non-notable house. Apparently, there are other more famous houses named "Whaley House" in the US (one in San Diego and one in Gregg County, Texas), but this one (in Harrison County, Texas) not one of them. bogdan 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - wow, you are right. A google search for "Whaley House" yeilds over 62,000 results[16]. However, adding marshall texas and it plummets to just 180[17], and the vast majority are Wiki clones, most of the others are almost all agents listing its rooms for rent, and remaining aren't even this property (eg the Historic Places Register). Regardless, the article does not cite one real notable feature - essentially it says built by "a prominent local businessman" then continues like an advertisement (and I've removed the worst POV adjectives already). The builder is not prominent enough for his own article, I doubt that his house is. - Glen 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice house, but not worthy of an article. Blatant advertising. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Glen... is the tree in the way or did they tear down the tower? Classic remuddling...--Isotope23 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Good job not even placing a link to this on the talk page of the article in question, fucking wankers.Kar98 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sango123 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda 4Play[edit]

NN, vanity. 82 Google hits! Moe Aboulkheir 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete less than 90 ghits for a porn subject? That is below the level of invisibility. Oh, and the article is uncited, the bio details are minimal and speculative at that, and the tone is promotionaland sounds like WP:OR. Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being way below notability... even with the porn-bias of the Internet, she still scores badly. ---J.S (t|c) 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus = keep, discounting about 10 keep votes from seemingly the same person. — FireFox 10:28, 28 June '06

2006 custodial workers' strike[edit]

  • Comment: Is it fair to say that there is a rough consensus now? We have two delete votes (the nominator's, DSJ2 in bad faith, and Tychocat's, which is not in bad faith, but perhaps his concerns have been or could be addressed) and six keep votes from registered editors who have a history of editing multiple articles (MiamiDolphins3, Arthur Rubin, GRBerry, me, Ryulong, and Froomkin). This is not to mention all of the other keep votes from both recently registered and unregistered users. I would like to move that we go to speedy keep at this point. Any objections? Universitytruth 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to hereby ask an administrator for advice on what to do if (when) DSJ2 nominates this article for deletion a third time without providing any new reasons, for I am sad to report that I expect this to happen. Thanks! Universitytruth 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Insignificance; run-of-the-mill strike does not deserve its own page DSJ2 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nomination was not completed correctly. As per WP:AfD, please use the {{subst:afd3 | pg=PageName}} template to list AfD nominations rather than adding a new section to the AfD list page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Speedy Keep: This article went through a vfd just two weeks ago (nominated by the same user, User:DSJ2, and the overwhelming consensus (10-2) was to keep it. Based on that, I am removing his/her AfD nomination. MiamiDolphins3 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing my vote from "strong keep" to "speedy keep" based on the good arguments made by User:Universitytruth and particularly the fact that this is a frivolus AfD that was intended as sneaky retribution for the fact that User:DSJ2 was resoundedly shot down a mere two weeks ago on his/her last attempt to delete the article, after many users made very persuasive arguments on the article's importance, relevance and value. The deletion nomination should be speedily removed for these reasons. MiamiDolphins3 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Please don't close an AfD unless you can show reasons for a flaw in the process or that the overwhelming consensus of last time will be repeated. Otherwise you're not closing it, you're just removing the AfD tags from the article. At the moment, all I can see is a disputed AfD, correctly listed as a second nomination. Unless there are a couple more opinions suggesting keep, or you are alleging a WP:POINT is being made by the nominator, this can wait for editors to decide to keep or speedy keep it. Be assured the article will not be deleted in a fit of absentmindedness or the like. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't see the previous AfD/VfD, but this reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps someone with access to the local papers could determine whether it is a newspaper article. If if it's not a copyvio, it needs to be trimmed to WP:Verified facts, and then we can see if there's anything left. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are no copyvio issues. This was a meticulously written and sourced article by many registered users, many of whom had different views on the issue, and it is a well-balanced, encyclopedic summary of one of the most important events in South Florida so far this year. The prior AfD discussion is available at [18], and you really should be reviewing that before casting a vote that can be taken seriously, as opposed to saying: "I don't know the history, I don't the issue, but here's my vote anyway." MiamiDolphins3 23:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)
    • On second thought, after reading the previous AfD (which should have been closed as "no concensus", rather than "keep"), trim and Merge (back) to University of Miami. I'm going to WP:Be Bold and rename the article to University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike, and try to maintain links. I doubt very much this was the only custodial workers' strike in 2006 to get national coverage. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bravo! If I had known how to rename the article, I would have done so long ago. Thank you very much for fixing this. (That said, I would not advise merging back; it would take up too much space in the U Miami article.) Universitytruth 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be pointed out that only 2 or 3 of the 10 "Keep" votes gave a reason. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However... Did you mistype? I would hate to conclude that you're misrepresenting a verifiable fact (namely that *most* of the keep votes provided reasons). Please reread the AfD page and then please comment on your mistaken claim. Thanks. Universitytruth 16:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's actually untrue also. The article was appropriately removed from AfD by an administrator following 12 votes and two weeks on that list, and of the 10 voting to keep the article, almost all of them offered compelling reasons for keeping it. A proposal to rename it is not unreasonable, but that is not the nature of the AfD nominator's argument, which he or she now attempts for the second time in less than a month. MiamiDolphins3 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Careful study shows that only 4 of the 10 gave reasons (ignoring "insufficient reason for deletion", and "for reasons listed above" (without further comment), and "an article thatis NN does not attract editors"), which is probably still enough for a "Keep" result, but is not a majority of the "Keep" "votes". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Careful study shows that only 2 of the 10 said "keep for reasons listed above" or the like, without offering new arguments. My math says that 10-2=8 users who did offer reasons to keep. (If you discount the 3 you do, that leaves 5 users with new arguments to keep, and not the 4, 3, or 2 you've mentioned in your comments.) And I would not discount this reason several listed: that the motion to delete was frivolous, lacked ground, etc. That fully counts, IMHO. It's an important part of the process of protecting articles from frivolous VfDs. Universitytruth 21:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noteworthy event covered in sufficiantly significant news media. Had the prior AFD been closed as a delete and then brought to deletion review it might well have been overturned. No consensus was a possible outcome given the number of IP participants, but so what. Either way, we are here now. The article is better than many I've seen. It cites sources, attempts NPOV, and is anything but a stub. I don't see any reason for deletion. GRBerry 02:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The same user who proposed the AfD several weeks ago, and lost, has not provided any new or relevant arguments for deletion. This is an attempt to disrupt wikipedia for a POV agenda, and DSJ2 should be dealt with accordingly. 65.34.154.254 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Speedy Keep This is a complete no-brainer. See previous AfD talk page for all the reasons to keep this article. Can someone advise at what point it would be appropriate to report DSJ2 for disrupting wikipidia to make a WP:POINT ? Universitytruth 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that User:DSJ2 was warned on his/her user page that repeated AfDs of the same article are disruptive and can lead to possible edit blocking, so I guess he/she's on notice. See: [19] MiamiDolphins3 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination for deletion doesn't give any arguments of the sort that are asked for under wikipedia's deletion policy. Thus this vote shouldn't even be happening unless such arguments are given. The nomination is frivolous, which is why I changed my vote from strong to speedy keep.Universitytruth 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I am astounded that this is up for discussion at all. This user DSJ2 is just trying to push a POV; most likely someone who hated the strike so much he wants its history obliterated. This is a well-written article that is still of interest to many. And since wikipedia isn't on paper, what's the problem? This is a waste of our time. I hope an administrator will keep an eye on the Derek Jeter fan, User:DSJ2. 72.254.247.22 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also question POV, and unverified nature of most of the statements in the article. Note that links all go to pro-strike sites. Yes, this was a local news story, but there's strikes every year in all sectors, and there's no assertion this strike is any different from any other. I would also request we all look at WP policies regarding assumption of good faith, and refraining from personal attacks. Tychocat 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you mean the three external links at the bottom, you should note that one link was to UNICCO's website (the anti-strike one) and two links were to separately organized pro-labor websites (one by faculty, another by students). This disproves your claim that "all" links go to pro-strike sites. If you mean the links embedded throughout the article, you should then note that many links go to UM administration responses (and these were anti-strike from beginning to end). I would like to assume good faith, but it would be great if it felt like you had read the article more closely. Also, it's not clear what you mean by the "unverified" "nature" of most of the statements... which ones? On a positive note: why does this strike have to be "different from any other" in order to merit an article? What are your criteria for determining this difference? Last note: this was more than a local event. It drew national attention and the involvement of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Steele, and others. This strike marked the SEIU's first establishment of a union in a historically anti-union city, and this has implications for new immigrants to the U.S. And this is why there was so much national attention. But anyone who's read the article knows this. Universitytruth 12:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the three external links, of which the one anti-strike link goes to a passworded site which cannot be accessed by outsiders. Effectively, all the links do in fact go to pro-strike sites. Regarding unverified statements, most of the comments by management are unattributed, and certainly can't be verified through the reputed UNICCO website. But anyone who's read the article knows this. Tychocat 09:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Tychocat, the UNICCO link was fully functional from the beginning of this article's creation until the strike settlement. Once the strike was settled, UNICCO decided to 'decomission' its site and password protect it. Surely, you aren't blaming the wikipedia editors for that, are you? Trust me, I wish they had left their site open. Meanwhile, feel free to tag statements you believe require citation. That would be a constructive way to improve an article. Universitytruth 12:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Tychocat, please pardon my tone in my 22 June comment. I was exasperated with this second round of AfD, and it showed. Now, I wanted to ask you whether my explanation about the three external links was satisfactory to you. I would like to suggest that this article might use some improvements, but should not be deleted. See the discussion for why not. If you have remaining concerns, please post them here, and perhaps they can be addressed. Thanks much. Universitytruth 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This was a notable event that affected not just UM, but the entire city of Miami. UNICCO workers did not only strike at the University, but also at MIA and at other locations that they were contracted in the city (in the best of my knowledge). It also appears to be a bad faith nomination from the discussion (I was unaware that the article had been put up for deletion already). Ryulong 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a historical strike which is likely to affect all labor in South Florida and university labor nationwide. If it's any indication, the significance of this strike is proven by the continuing persecution of the student activists involved, and the fact that various books and articles on it are in progress. 74.225.65.143 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a historic moment in South Florida. The entry on it in Wikipedia is an important document that should be preserved. 74.225.65.143 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This strike was a model for cooperation among "contract workers" at the university, who were not employed by the university but by a contractor, faculty members who were employees of the university but without affiliation with any union, and students, who did not have any direct ties either to the contract workers or unions other than enjoying the services of the workers. The faculty and the students supported the strike because they recognized the need for corrective action based on the facts as already stated in this Wikipedia article. This strike with dramatic expressions of support by sympathizers, including a long hunger strike that led to hospitalizations, considerable press coverage that showed a highly visible strikers' camp site at the edge of campus along a major thoroughfare, was possibly the first of its kind for social action in decades and may encourage other unfairly treated groups of workers to seek corrective action for their grievances. The strike at the UM in 2006 is likely to become a major milestone in the reactivation of the union movement in the USA. 70.149.46.43 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The strike had a significant effect on thousands of people within and without the university community - not only the workers, but all the students who had their daily routines disrupted by demonstrations, all the faculty who had to make choices about whether to keep classes on campus, all the parents who were concerned about the credibility of a university that so resolutely fought to not treat its janitors with humanity, or who were just concerned about the strike's and its associated events' effects on their kids' educations - this strike mattered to many, many people. The question of whether or not it has any national or global significance does not make it worthy of deletion. Personally, I feel that it does have something of a national importance, since the allegiance of college and university students and faculty with the low wage workes on their campuses to gain better treatment for the latter seems to be a growing trend, of which the UMiami campaign as exemplary. --65.60.141.115 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to its significance nationwide and worldwide for the labor movement in general [google it and you will see press references in many nations and many languages] and for the unusual coalition of community, student, and faculty groups, the strength of a primarily immigrant workforce in a predominantly antilabor city is remarkable -- reminiscent of Cesar Chavez and the farm labor movement involving migrant workers. This strike will become one of the landmarks of a revitalized labor movement revolving around a largely Hispanic workforce that has come to dominate the lowest paid jobs and most exploited class in many urban settings. Hence this article will be a landmark reference point. 65.13.41.73 11:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Add your reasons here. Tuvulu 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC) This event was not only significant for all of South Florida including Miami, one of the largest cities in the US with the greatest disparity of wealth and non-wealth, but was also impactful throughout the US. The fact that 100% of these downtrodden workers were of color with the majority immigrants is very impressive. They stood up to one of the richest universities in the country with strong national political ties and were triumphant. This strike was reported on not only internationally but in national papers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. It's simply not possible to sweep such an event under the rug.[reply]


(Edit conflict) On further reconsideration, Keep:. Although "Improper reason for deletion" in the previous AfD is false and not a reason to keep, the previous AfD appears to have been properly closed after all, as votes with actual reasons ran 4-1 or 4-2 for keep. That being said, it needs a POV tag. (I'll add one.) It seems clear there's enough material here for an article, and it's not inherently biased, so any dispute about the article should no longer be in an AfD. (I almost deleted Tuvulu's comment, which probably would have been a good thing for the article. If any of that were in the article, and likely to remain, I'd have to go back to delete, as strong evidence the article was inherently biased. I would suggest that he/she clean out his/her comments.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This article documents a major event that impacted South Florida tremendously. It was more than just a minor strike, it was the beginning of a chain reaction that raised the awareness of workers' rights not only in the University of Miami community, but also throughout the nation as the story circulated the national news wires. The article carries enough detail and information to be kept online for the education of others, and should not be deleted.Ju-ju 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The argument for deletion is incorrect and biased as DSJ2 stated it was a run-of-the-mill strike. If you ask anyone from any side of the issue surrounding this janitor's strike, it was very unique in its form, scope, and other aspects. For one, unions do not exist for property service workers in Right To Work states very often, and certainly not in Florida. THis alone makes it history worthy, and also Wikipedia worthy. --Justiciaparatodos 18:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The claim that this is a run-of-the-mill strike is ludicrous. (Do we have those any more?) This was the make-or-break strike for the SEIU in South Florida, or more likely the whole state. The result is being used to leverage work actions in several other local universities and at least one local mall also. The way it was settled -- having a card-check ballot with a 60% super-majority requirement -- is also an important departure. (I should note, in case it's relevant, that I am a professor at UM.) Froomkin 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep! Dozens of University of Miami workers, students and faculty, as well as members of the wider South Florida community, risked their health by fasting and their jobs by protesting what I and many others believed to be unjust policies restricting the janitors' basic rights to unionize and make a living wage. You don't have to agree with that opinion to understand that this was a big deal that went on for many weeks and attracted the attention of prominent progressive politicians and clergy, plus national media coverage. It happened; it's history now and it certainly deserves its space in Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.173.160 (talk • contribs) 23:38, June 23, 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep I am a professor at UM and followed the events closely. I can tell you that this strike was important to the entire university, not to mention the State of Florida. Many persons' lives were changed for the better. Many crucial issues were raised that students had to confront. For example, important ethical questions were addressed. This type of event should be preserved in writing, and should be readily available for other students and interested persons to review.//// Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.171.192.245 (talk • contribs) 18:40, June 26, 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep: I have witnessed the events and they have been protrayed pretty weel in the article. 216.148.155.148 04:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) Is this really less notable than some minor Pokemón character? Where's the harm to the encyclopedia in keeping this article? (2) It's a good article. I know that technically that shouldn't count of AfD, but it does to me, at least a bit. Herostratus 01:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, CSD-R1. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Terrorism agaisnt America[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli Terrorism against the United States

An AfD is not necessary to delete a dead redirect. Simply add a tag at the top of the page: {{db-redirnone}} - Fan1967 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvania Studios[edit]

Non-notable software company; just started; no releases; fails WP:CORP (attempted Prod). mtz206 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. New company without an actual game yet. Articles for CEO and the game they are developing should also be deleted. DrunkenSmurf 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not be deleted as yes Michael is the CEO and it is now listed as a team. This is unfair justice please reconsider. Neoki
  • Delete. I also agree with DrunkenSmurf: delete the game and CEO's articles. All seem to have been written by people in the company (see the 1st person references in the game's article), and none are of any notability as of yet. The second third Google result for "Silvania Island" is a bloody forum thread where a company employee is advertising the game as they're doing here. Come on. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a little but unfair. Please explain why it must be deleted. All new games must start some where. It is a non-profit game. It is free to play and is in development. Yes the second search is a forum thread but so what. What does this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoki (talk • contribs)
    • The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vessel for advertisement. The topic has to be notable or encyclopedically useful in some way in order to be included. Your game is not out yet, and has practically zero hype around it, let alone any notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the game kept up. There are more than a few people interested in it. -- Talk| 1:44am, 21 June 2006
    • Comment. This is this newly created user's first edit. Please do not resort to sock puppetry. This is not a vote, and there is no ballot box to stuff. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said in the other AfD on this item, per WP:NOT this is not the place to advertise your upcoming game Wildthing61476 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete burninate the whole lot. Danny Lilithborne 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • as i keep saying i am not advertising it. People keep asking what its about so i said read this. People read it and goes oh thats what it is. So not advertising it purley explains what it is. Now stop being childish and just let silvania explain what it is, hence what this site was set up for Neoki 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, you're ignoring what we've said. Quoting myself: "The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... The topic has to be notable or encyclopedically useful in some way in order to be included.". The Wikipedia was established to be an "open encyclopedia", not somewhere to promote largely unknown things, even if they are non-commercial. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 8th in baseball[edit]

I don't think we need a separate article for everyday in baseball. If we do this for baseball, then basketball, football (American and worldwide), hockey, etc woon't be far beyond. It's unneccessary datecruft. Wildthing61476 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what I call a Good Lord! delete, because it makes you say "Good Lord!" that someone bothered to write the article in the first place. BoojiBoy 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Scary thing is the idea that we might get 180 more of these. (Someone also needs to let the author know that the Los Angeles Dodgers never played the Atlanta Braves in 1955. I believe Brooklyn defeated Milwaukee that day.) Fan1967 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord! Delete per BoojiBoy. ~ trialsanderrors 17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any outstanding facts to main article on September 8th. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before this gets out of control. --Musicpvm 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strewth! Delete before we get October 5th in share prices. Jammo (SM247) 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above before we get an article on Weather in Akron, Ohio on January 26th, 1955. --Coredesat 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as above MrDolomite 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juuuuust a bit outside (delete). Though personally I think the nom should have waited a couple months so this article could have been nominated under "September 8th in AfD". ;o) Resolute 05:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - but I can't wait for the same in ice hockey.... Robertsteadman 19:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Ragib 21:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Colocation Services[edit]

Delete. I'm extremely suspicious of this article. Despite being an internet-based business, the company gets next to no Google results. Those that it does get are all clearly advertisements, as I suspect this article to be. There is no justification for notability given, and the company does not seem to meet WP:CORP or the like. I prodded this article, it was changed to a redirect by another user, but then the original author changed it back and expanded it (still not providing great justification for it). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was not prodded. It was an invalid (not a group of people, etc) speedy delete which I removed and redirected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I guess that happens when I spend too much time at once patrolling :p -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silvania Island (game) and Silvania Island[edit]

Non-notable software; game does not exist yet. See also AfD for company: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silvania_Studios. mtz206 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As I said in the other AfD, the third Google result is a forum thread in which a company employee or "team member" is advertising the game. The game's forum has only 70 registered members, and 469 posts. Extremely weak. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes it may be weak but it does not profit in any way. Why are you asking for this to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoki (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete Per WP:NOT this is not a place to advertise your game, for profit or not Wildthing61476 15:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tied the duplicate article Silvania Island to this AfD, as they will need to be merged or deleted according to the outcome of this discussion. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 15:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comments in the corresponding AfD. DrunkenSmurf 16:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete burninate the whole lot. Danny Lilithborne 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoclimatic change[edit]

bad title, too general intro discussing climate, not finished and not focused on paleclimate, there is already paleoclimate article in wikipedia and discussion of its importance to climate change. Figure (nice) but not related to paleoclimat Pflatau 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment what are the other related articles? joshbuddy, talk 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Possible Copyright Violation Portions of this article are a direct copy from [20] and various chapters from this site. DrunkenSmurf 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are already climate change and paleoclimate articles, plus it is a Copyright violation. Jll 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pflatau 02:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelos Spandagos[edit]

Another non-notable crackpot science-writer, associated with the same ultra-nationalist Greek-supremacy "grecoreport"/"Davlos" website/journal as the recently deleted Elias Tsatsomoiros and Joseph E. Yahuda. Effectively unsourced, as the only fact reported about this author in the article is taken from the notorious grecoreport website, which is known to be extremely unreliable about quotes. Even if it was verified, that fact (a claim published by Spandagos about Copernicus) should go in the Copernicus article and wouldn't make Spandagos himself notable. Another "achievement" of Spandagos seems to be that in 1997 he claimed to have discovered a lost work of ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes Apolloniates ([21]). If true, this would have caused an earthquake in classical scholarship, but ever since, nobody except Spandagos seems to have seen the document and no other medium except Daulos and some gullible newspaper have ever published anything about it. A charlatan, apparently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utter crap.--Aldux 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Is every language cursed with such kinds of theories. Interlingua talk 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Antonia[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO. -- Wikipedical 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I've added a bit to the article, it still needs more biographical information, but I'd say four published books makes one notable in their particular field. -Dawson 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. DrunkenSmurf 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is the writer of several books, contributes to multiple magazines, and has appeared in the award winning film New York Doll adds up to notability. Yamaguchi先生 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge. Petros471 17:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Height Difference Between A Married Couple[edit]

New article about a single record in the Guiness. TheProject 16:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List_of_world_records. The information would be valuable there. DrunkenSmurf 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would hazzard to say this article is incapable of being anything other than a stub. No need to merge, people can just pick up a copy of the Guinness book. Otherwise, the Guinness book article would expand uncontrollably - which records should be referenced in the article and which should not? Agent 86 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if list of world records exists then theres no reason it shouldn't attempt to be a complete list. Ydam 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Jammo (SM247) 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DrunkenSmurf.
  • Delete. Don't even merge. Not of sufficient encyclopedic value to even be worth putting into the article. Herostratus 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Anaya[edit]

Article about non-notable frontman of questionably notable band An Angle. Same goes for the remaining two band members (who apparently have done little work outside the band), which I am also nominating:

--HarryCane 16:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 rename and cleanup. Petros471 17:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tag editors[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. AlistairMcMillan 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Tag editor, and reformat the alphabetic list to be a list of examples. Jll 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject: Deletion. The article also provides information about what a Tag editor is. Beside that, there even is a own category for listing software: Lists of software. Should we delete them all? I don't think so. Therefore, this site also should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.125.231.62 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 June 2006
  • Rename and clean up per Jll. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either
    • Rename as per Jll or
    • Split the article, calling the informational part Tag editor and the list part Comparison of tag editors...something like how Text editor and Comparison of text editors works right now. --Yvh11a 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackintosh[edit]

Delete Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say keep as a real word commonly used as defined, but low Google hits and the fact that it is a neologism means I vote delete. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I think you mean your opinion is to delete. This is not a vote and votes are unwelcome. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Eh...I guess. Mostly I was using "vote" colloquially to mean "what I think should be done". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mr Lefty. joshbuddy, talk 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism per above. Jammo (SM247) 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I was looking for info on what the term hackintosh means, and I find that the entry is needed. However, it is shabby in its current state, and needs a rewrite. I'll change it somewhat. But the point is that it's useful if someone ever wants to know what a hackintosh is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahnaqsh (talk • contribs) .
  • Merge into a Trivia section on Mac OS X. It's not worthy of its own article, but a mention as trivia on the OS X page is certainly fine. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there were sources proving that "Hackintosh" was commonly used to referred to hacked copies of Mac OS X running on non-Apple hardware. However the author provided no sources. AlistairMcMillan 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More worthy of Urban Dictionary. --GunnarRene 01:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This term was created and used by the people who orginal hacked the OSX x86 edition to work on other PCs as well as users who know use their creations. Icanstillcu 14:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Probably this article should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86, since it's related. If you look here: http://www.osx86project.org, you find a forum with more than 130'000 posts and 38'000 members (as of June 2006). Due to the size of this "Hackintosh"-community, these Wikipedia-entries should be preserved. --asklucas 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except they don't use the term Hackintosh. They use the term OSx86. AlistairMcMillan 04:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, although Timffl is free to rewrite a version that complies with WP:CORP criteria. I myself have heard of and seen the bottles produced by this company.Kimchi.sg 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigg[edit]

Doesn't meet notability criteria in relation to WP:CORP -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7: doesn't even assert notability StuartF 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per StuartF. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meets notability criteria : The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization. It is to aluminium drinking bottles what victorinox is to swiss army knives.
  • Move : their bottle is design classic, part of the permanent collection at New York Museum of Modern Art but an article for the company name may not be justified. I'd move the content to the currently defunct (due to copyright violation) article 'Sigg Bottle' and hope that it might grow. I'd do this now except that I don't like to pre-empt the discussion. Timffl 13:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC) I've copied the etxt to a scratch area on my user page and reworded to suit the title 'Sigg Bottle' - I'll move it there if I don't see objections here or on my user page. Timffl 19:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Bowl[edit]

A competition between two school football teams. Not encyclopedic because it is not particularly unique nor newsworthy Jll 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Changed title from pagename to Spaghetti Bowl. As for me, i'm so far undecided. Lsjzl 16:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One day I'll learn how to read instructions properly. You should see what my flat-pack furniture turns out like! Jll 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Few google hits, but a long-running event with a large attendence. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rivarlies between high school football teams are definitely non-notable. --Musicpvm 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A 29 year rivalry does not in my estimation make it "long-running". Harvard-Yale is long-running, and most of the high-school football rivalries in Massachusetts are 65+ years old which I would consider more long-running and I wouldn't include them. DrunkenSmurf 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Might call for a creation of High School Rivalries page, similar to college page.69.140.29.103 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notable "Spaghetti Bowl" is the I-15/US-93/95 interchange in downtown Las Vegas. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the disambig. (I question whether the football rivalry deserves a presence in the dab, but that's no longer a matter for AfD.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a dab in this space. The name is common. The question is do any of these deserve an article. Maybe a generic article about the many uses like: Reno Spaghetti Bowl,The Circle Interchange, or Spaghetti Bowl in Chicago, Spaghetti Bowl (restaurant) or the ones in Dallas, El Paso TX, Hampton Roads VA, Indianapolis, St. Paul MN, Wayne NJ. I may rewrite the article to reflect these. Vegaswikian 07:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article in place now is completly different then the one that was nominated. Vegaswikian 07:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disamig Eluchil404 05:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I proposed its deletion, but I'm changing to keep now, following Vegaswikian's rewrite. Jll 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the disambig page (would have said delete for the orig.) Inner Earth 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. Kimchi.sg 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steci[edit]

Only 55 GHits for full name. Utterly unnotable and more like an advert. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - reads like church spam, and creating editor has done nothing but blantantly remove my tags, has made no attempt to cleanup... - Adolphus79 18:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per original request. Burn it. PratzStrike 02:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you cut away all the proselytzing, you have a major Indian Christian denomination (not just one church) with a nearly 2000-year history. I have edited out (I hope) the spamvangelism -- let me know what you think now. PS - when this AFD is done, I will move the article to the full name rather than the acronym "Steci". NawlinWiki 02:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to this site (which may be horribly biased) the church in question has 560,000 members. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to the comment. That site actually says the Mar Thoma church has 550,000 members and STECI, its offshoot, has 10,000. I still think 10k members is significant enough for a WP listing. NawlinWiki 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air distillation[edit]

  • This material is already covered in Fractional distillation a redirect would suffice instead of a stub page with nothing linking to it. If further history or detail about fractional distillation of air is to be included in the article it might make sense to keep it? Ultima 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 22:06Z

Floridan fire ant[edit]

Very few google hits. Article is not true and is a hoax Zalgt 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment "Hoax" is not a speedy delete criterion. Please choose an ordinary delete, or a valid speedy criterion. Thank you. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, Delete. However, I maintain that since it is not one of the CSDs, it ought to be. Information put on the encyclopedia specifically to deceive the reader should be kept for as short a time as is humanly possible. Material that compromises Wikipedia's integrity is harmful to the project as a whole, and in my opinion, speedy deletion should most certainly be applicable to hoaxes. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Jll 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Nominator did not request a speedy deletion. Please choose an ordinary delete, or a valid speedy criterion. Thank you. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh very well, Delete if I really must. Jll 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How sad. The pseudonymous article author practically admitted on the talk page that it was a hoax. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-24 22:05Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HitNews[edit]

Is this really deserving of its own article? As it stands, it's not encyclopaedic, not notable, and certainly does not appear to have any grounds for requiring its own page. It certainly does not pass the Google test with the only English links being its own article.

See also: Oldies Top Five Ameltzer 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local radio programs are in no way notable. --Musicpvm 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hillier[edit]

I ask for this page deleted because i do not wish it to be here and as i am Matt hillier ! Matt Hillier 10:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page is blanked now (not by Mr. Hillier), but original article was nn musical group. NawlinWiki 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A3, A7 and (perhaps) G7. Tevildo 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not speedy deletable for A3 - plenty of content for a stub. Not speedy deletable for G7 unless Mr Hillier is using a sockpuppet and even then there's an interesting metaphysical point to be questioned. A7 comes closest, but no reason to use: let AfD remeasure this article against WP:MUSIC and decide rather than rushing things. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Kimchi.sg 15:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldies_Top_Five[edit]

Is this really deserving of its own article? As it stands, it's not encyclopaedic, not notable, and certainly does not appear to have any grounds for requiring its own page. It certainly does not pass the Google test with the only English links being its own article.

See also: HitNews

Ameltzer 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local radio programs are in no way notable. --Musicpvm 18:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason to have this here, sorry. PratzStrike 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree as above, not notable. -- MrDolomite 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 moved to TfD - Liberatore(T) 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RasulGuliyev[edit]

This Template is useless. Švitrigaila 10:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 closed; WP:POINT nomination; proposed deletion of one article =/= proposed deletion of another. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Fitzgerald[edit]

If the winner of Big Brother, Greg Mathew, is bein deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mathew than there is no place in Wikipedia for this nobody. A search of Google news shows there are no arciles about Ryan Fitzgerald. Gtoomey 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Since being a contestant on Big Brother in 2004 has co-hosted two seasons of the prime-time Big Brother spin-off/special Friday Night Games, and also hosted other television specials, and hosted radio programs. In other words, a medium-profile media figure post-Big Brother.
    • How can you say that with a straight face as Tim_Brunero is proposed for deletion, I didn't propose it, he's far better known than Ryan Fitzgerand, and Mr Brunero is extensively-published journalist & radio presenter Gtoomey 10:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asa01 21:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a bad faith nomination - the editor even announces that fact in the AfD discussion about whether Greg Mathew should be evicted from wikipedia. Asa01 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You argument is patently absurd. How could you possibly propose keeping his unknown contestant when the winner Greg Mathew is propsed for deletion? Gtoomey 10:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable outside of being a BB contestant. -- Chuq 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - nominated to make a point. -- 9cds(talk) 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Host of two different television shows, as well as being a former football player. Cyclone49 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as former professional AFL player and TV host. There are 579 references to Fitzgerald on an Australia New Zealand database.

Capitalistroadster 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep Eluchil404 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McCosker[edit]

This is an article on an Australian who had guilty verdict on a sex crime overturned in Fiji on constitutional grounds. I doubt this is at all notable enough for Wikipedia, and this definetely warrants a community debate. Harro5 09:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Neutral. Keep, as a result of AYArktos' edits. The case may be notable both for the court case and for the issue about the lack of government assistance given, but if so, it really does need to be rewritten to focus on those things rather than in a Wikinews-like description of the alleged crime itself, which is not particularly notable. Rebecca 10:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite as per Rebecca. I think it is notable but agree poorly written and not referenced properly.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also I don't think biographical details required--A Y Arktos\talk 11:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Rebecca 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to AYArktos for the rewrite. A search of an Australia-New Zealand newspaper database gets 21 hits and the importance of the case makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 11:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewriting. Notability isn't a problem for me. The case has a distinct point. Ansell 22:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have worked on it some more. I really think this article should be about the court case and not the person. Firstly there is a matter of respect for living people. Secondly, he isn't notable, the case is. The article probably should be renamed. I have two different citations for the case though :-( Would some of Wikipedian law students like to have a go at it when they have finished their exams? There really isn't much yet on Fijian law, and no case law articles on Wikipedia that I found.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this would be a good move. Perhaps we could engage the Australian law WikiProject to do a bit of work on law in the broader Pacific. Rebecca 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Jammo (SM247) 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that it should be renamed, reflecting the focus on the case, rather than the person. JPD (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AYArktos. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and consider nominating for WP:GA. Thanks AYArktos! (Original creator of the article) Andjam 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to McCosker v The State (of Fiji) -- I@n ≡ talk 04:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - merging does not require an AfD discussion. Kimchi.sg 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebTV_Networks[edit]

Proposing for Smerge/Merge with MSN TV article. Much of this article is redundant with the MSN TV article. Ameltzer 23:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. - Liberatore(T) 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visible Technologies[edit]

"a professional internet marketing firm that provides solutions for company's seeking to increase their online presence"; yet more nn corpospam NawlinWiki 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete currently this article just reads as an advertisement. Needs to be cleaned up and provide links to verify its notability. DrunkenSmurf 18:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Advertising or other spam Jll 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of poker players[edit]

Page does not contain any information that is not already provided by categories such as Category:Poker players and Category:Gambling writers. This page has also been spammed on numerous occasions by vanity entries. Delete. Essexmutant 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The categories are more exhaustive and this list is wildly redundant between its sections. 2005 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Kymacpherson 13:08, 15 June 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, W.marsh 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been deleted at conclusion of original nom. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were just 2 comments, people generally want more discussion unless it's a slam dunk, which I didn't feel like this was really. --W.marsh 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, but the nominator makes a strong case in saying that there's nothing in this article that wouldn't be more appropriate in the other choices. Still, I see where you're coming from. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fold. List pages that essentially duplicate categories should be deleted. Kickaha Ota 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant per categories. Kuzaar, relisting for more input is rarely bad and often results in an unambiguous result . Just zis Guy you know? 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. I'm not criticizing the relister, I'm just just stating that the strength of the nominator's and others' above arguments make a very good case against the inclusion of this redundant article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant as explained above -- MrDolomite 16:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kid movies[edit]

Completing a nomination. Rationale was: "This is not an encyclopedic article -- it really has no place being here.". - Liberatore(T) 18:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 if nothing else, this AfD shows that the article is self-promotional (in that no one but people involved in the organization think we should keep the article), see WP:NOT. Verifiability issues... calling up professors and so on doesn't really cut it in terms of verifiability, which is non-negotiable. Anyway, there seems to be a consensus to delete, even counting people who've only editted this article. W.marsh 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bapudi[edit]

No assertion of notability (was tagged for speedy but instead was prod'ed), 500ish googlehits just for the word Bapudi. Kuzaar-T-C- 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A grant from The California Council for the Humanities [22] for a Bapudi project should count as some notability. The various attempts to delete this article is intimidating for a first-time article writer. Any perceived lack of sophistication should be viewed as inexperience not as insouciance. I would appreciate a clear, jargon-free explanation of why this article is not consistent with Wikipedia rules and what steps should be taken to conform to them.-Godelfin

I understand, and you should by no means take the processes personally. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's Notability guidelines in making an article. As it stands, the article does not explain how its subject is notable, which is an important criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For my part, I recommend this article for deletion for lack of verification and sources. It's not the lack of sophisication. If there were concrete, reputable, sources, that could be confirmed by a third party of the beginning text, instead of solely on your word, I would have no problem with the article staying and being given the appropriate care and attention to expand it. It's the unverified, uncited by a third party, initial block of text that I have the significant problem with. Additionally, the press release cited in the article, does not indicate Bapudi as the recipients of the grant. -JJJJust 18:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the page for "Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West," [23] the production company is listed as Bapudi Films, as well as information regarding the grant. -GoDelfin

  • Delete The original content at the article this morning, now speedied, convinces me that the creator intends this as a joke. Xoloz 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not intended as a joke. The content has been continually refined to meet the specifications. Previous content should not be considered.--Godelfin 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current content does nothing to dissuade me from my view formed this morning. For one thing, Bapudi -- as defined -- is almost an A7 now. "Secular organization... for good times"? What does that even mean? Certainly sounds like a joke, and is indistinguishable from, say, the Friar's Club or the Freemasons. Xoloz 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised of corrections made to avoid criticisms that entry is frivolous.--Godelfin 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is information on the article's talk page that is somewhat more specific about the nature of the topic. Based on that, I find it difficult to categorically dismiss the article as a joke. -Fsotrain09 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay -- it is now slightly less frivilous. It still lacks verification from reliable sources, however. Xoloz 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It fails to assert a sensible reason for notability, and I can't see one anywhere else on the web. When I looked twenty minutes ago, it was a non-secular organisation (i.e. a religious organisation?), now it is an artistic movement. Independent film and self-released music are its most notable products. - well anyone with a video camera and a keyboard can do that. Jll 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apparently this article has been deleted before. I have thus tagged it with the recreation of deleted material speedy tag. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment CSD-G4 does not apply when the article is substantially different to the one originally deleted. The article deleted earlier bears no relation to this one. Please do not nominate for G4 speedy deletion unless you have reason to believe the content is the same or similar. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.This article is not a recreation of deleted material. No record exists of the deleted article so there is no proof to support this assertion. All calls for deletion of this article must direct criticism solely towards the content of the article. I believe this is only fair. Also, questioning the notability of artistic output is subjective and the above comment that "anyone... can do that" is not only false but constitutes an unfair attack. Again, one can look to the press release for Bapudi Films' "Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadow West" for a verifiable and reliable source. Another source is the OC Register, a major newspaper in Southern California, which discussed a screening held at the University of California. See http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1173712.php
While that is a reputable source, no mention is made of Bapudi Films. -Fsotrain09 20:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article links to trailerparkfilm.com, which lists credit to Bapudi Films. -Godelfin 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, questioning the notability of artistic output is subjective and the above comment that "anyone... can do that" is not only false but constitutes an unfair attack. Nothing unfair or subjective about that. Anyone can make a film or some music. What makes it notable is if other people recognise it as such. For example, by giving the artist a major award, or by buying a million copies. As for the article in the paper, well local papers are full of inconsequential local stories. Jll 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from expressing unverifiable opinions such as "local papers are full of inconsequential local stories." They are inconsequential to the discussion of this article.-Godelfin
  • Comment. Jll, wow, that has to be one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. Art can't be notable unless it gets an award or sells millions of copies? The Mona Lisa didn't win a single award, I guess thats crap. Sex pistols barely sold anything in their heyday, I assume they posed no notable mark in musical history. Did you know Kurosawa never won an Oscar? I guess he was just another hack with a camera, right? Anyone can make a film or some music? Have you ever tried? Ever filmed something for more than 30 minutes with a crew? Ever composed an entire album?. I'd like to see you come up with a handful of movies, much less multiple albums. Its not easy, and for you to belittle ANY artistic work is moronic and small minded. local papers are full of inconsequential local stories. Uhm, excuse me, WHAT? First of all the OC Register has a circulation of over 350,000, so its not just some local paper. Second, what you might find inconsequential may be life changing for others (did you even bother to read the news article?). You already made up your mind about this article, and that within itself should disbar you from paritipating in this process. -Japhar8181
    • Please don't call me moronic and small-minded - it is against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks. I cited two examples (that's why I wrote for example) of things that indicate that Wikipedia should have an article on the artist concerned - I could have provided a much longer list - e.g. a piece of work known to many people (Mona Lisa), having heavily influenced many other figures in their professions and built up a large following (Sex Pistols and Akira Kurosawa). But I don't see any evidence that these apply to Bapudi either. If you have such evidence then present it. If it is credible then I will certainly reverse my opinion. Should the criteria for a Wikipedia article be that someone has simply managed to make a film or an album? There must be tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have done this. The Orange County Register is a local paper serving Orange County. The story appears to be inconsequential because there don't seem to be any follow up stories, and the national or international press didn't pick it up either. Jll 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Orange County Register OC_Register won its first Pulitzer Prize in 1985. --Godelfin
Yes, but a large part of its content is local stories. This story is a local story. No-one outside of the area published it. Jll 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC miserably, no claims of notability in the article (A7? Probably just short of it), not even certain if it's a religious movement or artistic collective. It should go. Tevildo 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that many artistic movements, for instance Der_Blaue_Reiter have been concerned with the underlying spiritual truths in art. See also Joseph_Campbell. See also Dada for an example of an art movement characterized as anti-art. --Godelfin
True - when your movement becomes notable, we will welcome an article about it. Until then, it shouldn't be here. Incidentally, please could you sign your posts with four tildes, thus: ~~~~ This is especially important in AfD. Tevildo 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede you this point. Please see changes made to article to make it less contentious.Godelfin 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue is notability, not "contentiousness". In order to make your article acceptable, you will have to provide evidence that your movement is notable; that it has some influence in the wider cultural world. One reference from a local newspaper, unfortunately, isn't enough. And can I ask you again to sign your posts properly? Thank you. Tevildo 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The auto-link in my last signature did not appear because I changed my preferences to 'raw signature.') On the topic at hand: No longer is bapudi identified as an artistic movement and never was it identified as a religious movement. I have continuallly clarified this article so that it will considered acceptable. Bapudi is the name used to identify creative works not limited to a particular media, it is inherently inter-disciplinary. Also, the OC Register is listed as #32 in the Top 100 Daily Newspapers in the United States.[[24]] When will it stopped being identified as a "local" newspaper when it, in fact, reaches a large metropolitan audience?--Godelfin 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To help clarify, must every single article in Wikipedia be notable? Japhar8181 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines are a way for an average Wikipedian to determine if an article's subject is or isn't appropriate to have an article about. The notability guidelines for biographies, companies, etc. are to prevent every interested party, no matter how tiny, from deciding to create an article about themselves. Without notability guidelines in place, the encyclopedia would be overflowing with articles about garage bands, things that people made up in school one day, etc. The verifiability guidelines also go a long way in helping in this respect. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should thus be held to strong encyclopedic standards. It's not paper, either, but that just means that the signal-to-noise ratio can climb to unsurpassed levels, as is evidenced by the new pages watch. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Of course, WP isn't perfect -- we delete non-notable stuff as we find it. The fact that other non-notable stuff might be hiding somewhere is no reason to keep this non-notable thing. Xoloz 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well I'm the one who put the speedy tag on it in the first place. So I guess you know what my vote is. BJK 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I retagged it for speedy, which was in turn declined, being that the author had transformed it from an art movement into an organization, I think. Either way, consensus seems to be unanimous in this AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unanimous means complete agreement by everyone. Have you read this thread? It's not unanimous. Japhar8181 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only person that I see has basically voted keep is the article's creator, who has alternately called the subject an art movement, a production studio, an organization, and "the Way of the Bapudi". --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Way of the Bapudi??? Are you trying to offend us? You do realize that personal attacks is against Wikipedia policy, right? You have been needlessly agressive towards us and now with your petty insults, I have to say, I'd like an administrator to audit this situation because I feel that you are becoming abusive. Japhar8181 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's personal attack policy, and I have made none. In mentioning the above facts I am merely calling into a stark light the inconsistent acts and opinions of the article's author- particularly that on the talk page of the article. If you are offended by my tone, I'm sorry; but in the light of this evidence I cannot find any way to, in good conscience, keep the article detailing this subject in the encyclopedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an admin look at this? Would that help? -Fsotrain09 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the AFD process is running itself just fine. The administrator who declined speedying it once again may or may not have been right to do so, but I'm not at all opposed to letting the AFD run to completion. Those in favor of keeping have done nothing to provide evidence of the subject's notability or provide verifiable sources thereof, so an administrator looking at the issue would do better spending their time elsewhere. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you just admitted that you ARE opposed to letting the AFD run to completion. You (and most of the other editors) have made your mind on the matter and no change to the content is going to make a difference, right? Most of you cling on to what was originally written and can't let go, so whats the point of letting things "run to completion"? Anything we modify or add won't be taken account. Japhar8181 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not so. The article as it stands does not meet a number of inclusion criteria. If you have contrary evidence to this, by all means, post it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just for reference, the above inconsistencies in the article and accompanying talk page include such quotes as:
The way of the bapudi is still very unknown and not much has been properly documented. It wasn't until 1987 that the original codex that contained the famed bapudian canon was discovered. Due to lack of funding, it has not been fully authenticated or translated. Please give us more time as we continue to discover new information about this organization.
  • Being that the article apparently refers to an electronic music foundation, a certain artist (according to the link in the article), or perhaps a movement, or perhaps a major organization notable for not having been given a grant by the state of California, I'm kind of leaning toward dismissing the entire article as a joke, as some editors did above. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I implore you to explicitly define the inconsistencies in the article. The text clearly identifies Bapudi as the name used to identify creative works not limited to a particular media, it is inherently inter-disciplinary.Godelfin 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency lies in your inability to explain what Bapudi is. It's a name used to identify "creative works not limited to a particular media". It's all well and good that you call art "bapudi", but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one which has demands of verifiability (I note that you have removed all third-party verifiable sources from the page) and notability. Wikipedia documents notable phenomena, it is not here to help promote non-notable or made-up phenomena, such as a movement/artist/organization that was created from an ancient text which has not been translated. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the article to include the 3rd party source to the OC Register article that was listed above on this page but not directly linked within the article text. I have made every attempt to assert that Bapudi is indeed a real phenomenon. Godelfin 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. I can speak to the issue of the grant from the California Council for the Humanities (NOT the State of California, as someone erroneously stated -- has anyone actually followed and read the link??). I produced the film in question, and wrote the grant proposal. The receiver for the grant was Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, as Bapudi is not a non-profit organization (501c.3) and thus cannot receive grant funds. However, the film was produced under the aegis of Bapudi. I would be happy to provide a copy of the film, as well as copies of any relevant grant paperwork to prove that this is the case. The California Council for the Humanities is a major organization, and I believe their support of a film that bears the Bapudi name should be sufficient to establish notability. The film has also been mentioned in the Orange County Register, rated 32 in a list of the top 100 daily newspapers. I cannot speak on the history of this wikipedia entry, as I have not been following it closely, but as the entry stands now, it is accurate and correct. As I peruse the article history, I come to believe that some of the vitriol directed toward this entry is due to the flippant tone in which the original article was written. Please consider *only* the facts and the article as it stands in making your decision whether or not to delete.Styliztic 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.The fact Bapudi is not explicitly mentioned on the California Council for the Humanities (CCH) webpage is an error of omission. The CCH entry for the film simply makes no mention of the production organization behind the film. However, the webpage www.trailerparkfilm.com clearly establishes that the film is produced under Bapudi's aegis (see the links near the bottom of the page). I can use the grant paperwork to prove that the film was in fact awarded a grant. Thus, although the word "Bapudi" is not mentioned on the California Council for the Humanities webpage, the link between the two organizations is factual and verifiable. Some effort should be made on the part of Wikipedia admins to verify this information with me before considering deletion.Styliztic 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That Bapudi has been funded or credited by the CCH is not necessarily the issue at question here. The issue is that there has been no evidence presented that Bapudi has notability sufficient to guarantee it a place in the encyclopedia, which neither your, nor the other above keep votes bothers to address. One instance of an example that might mark an organization as notable (according to our guidelines is being the subject of multiple nontrivial organizations, or being part of mainstream cultural thought, or having a major effect on the intellectual world in which it resides, none of which any evidence has been presented that Bapudi has done. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry sir but you are incorrect when you state that notability is to be used as guidelines. The link you provided clearly states that: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. -Japhar8181 21:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I believe the fact that we have been funded by the CCH does make us notable. The notability guidelines make it clear that notability is not the same as fame, but is more related to importance. I believe that being credited and funded by a major humanities granting organization (CCH is part of the NEA) qualifies us as important and therefore notable. The notability guidelines also state that notability is not a rigid wikipedia criterion, but a guideline, and that the concept is "somewhat contentious." Therefore, I must contend that Bapudi is notable because of its association with other notable organizations. I'll write more on this later, I don't have time at the moment. Just let me make it clear that I AM addressing the issue of notability -- our position as an artist with an NEA grant makes us notable.Styliztic 19:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.I missed Japhar's last comment. I was wrong, notability is not a wikipedia guideline. Thank you for the correction, Japhar. This strengthens Bapudi's case for legitimacy within Wikipedia, unless we are to be deleted on the basis of an essay. We are a legitimate entity which has been recognized by an affiliate of the NEA. We exist for positive aesthetic and social reasons. What does our entry in the Wikipedia harm? Is there some danger that people looking up Bapudius, and accidentally finding Bapudi? Is the four kilobytes of data that our entry comprises going to fill Wikipedia's servers? This notability complaint sounds like an easy excuse for erasing an aesthetic which certain people find distasteful.Styliztic 05:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on the aesthetic of bapudi, but the voters who have expressed a desire to keep the article have provided no verifiable evidence that it, as an aesthetic, exists. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the standards of verifiability are available at WP:V. Which, by the way, is not a guideline, but a policy. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And one last thing- if notability was not a strong marker for incusion of an article, why is it in so many of the criteria for speedy deletion? -Kuzaar-T-C- 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bapudi has been shown to be plenty notable. To anyone who has checked out some of the reference links, Bapudi is obviously not a farce. I find more value in Wikipedia's Arguments Against Deleting Articles For Non-Notability (found in the Notability guidelines) than I do in the Arguments For Deletion. Topics concerning the deletion of valid content, the lack of subjective criteria, and the benefits of even obscure content are especially important. I understand the urge to prevent pollution. This Bapudi page is not pollution; it's clearly not an article some kid wrote about his dog. The internet is evolving the process of information exchange. I vote to support it, instead of being afraid of it. I vote to KEEP this article. Netwait 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User's first and only edit. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Kuzaar's last post says, "....the voters who have expressed a desire to keep the article have provided no verifiable evidence that it, as an aesthetic, exists." Kuzaar, please explain to me how Bapudi could receive a grant from an affiliate of the NEA if it doesn't exist? I can submit clear and convincing evidence to prove that a) Bapudi has produced a film called "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" and that b) the California Council for the Humanities awarded that film a $5000 grant. Additionally I can prove that Art Center College of Design, one of the most prestigious design schools in the world (www.artcenter.edu) granted the film an additional $5000. Ask me, and I will submit our grant paperwork for review. So I ask again: Kuzaar, by what logic can you claim Bapudi's nonexistence? If you can submit a reasoned argument by which you show that a non-existent organization can receive a grant from the CCH, I will withdraw from this argument immediately and accept the deletion of this entry with humility. Otherwise, I do not believe you are participating in the consensus-building process in good faith. You are not participating in an exchange of ideas; you are merely stating the same nonsensical argument over and over: that Bapudi does not exist. A reasonable argument for deletion would be that our association with the CCH is not enough to establish our notability; the argument that Bapudi does not exist is unreasonable, as there is clear and convincing evidence that it does. Even if you were to argue that a CCH grant is insufficient to establish notability, deletion is hardly a lead pipe cinch. Bapudi's entry meets the three Wikipedia standards for inclusion: it is verifiable (the physical existence of the film and its grants), it is not independent research (or in fact research at all), and the entry is written with a neutral point of view. I would like to point out to all administrators that, on the basis of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, there is NOT a consensus about the removal of this article. The article's critics have failed to show that the article violates Wikipedia's rules, and have not directly addressed our claim that recognition from an NEA affiliate is sufficient to establish notability.Styliztic 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see a verifiable source that names Bapudi the recipient of any grant. On looking at each and every one of the links provided in the article, Bapudi is only mentioned in two, and that is as a musical artist. You have persistently failed to provide any evidence for Bapudi's existence (except possibly as a music artist?), much less notability within its field. Further, the sock/meatpuppet flood that has persistently plagued this AFD as evidenced by each of the users that have voted keep (I point out that you yourself have less than 10 edits, all to this AFD) is outstandingly suspicious. I remind you that Articles for Deletion are not a vote, but a discussion in which Wikipedia editors attempt to decide what should be done about a marginal article. Lastly, I want to bring up one more point. You have insisted multiple times that the film, a recipient of a grant, is associated with Bapudi. I have yet to see any evidence of that, either. If you can link me to some third-party, verifiable information regarding my concerns, and if the flood of newly-registered users cools down a bit, I would feel less strongly about the deletion of this article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First off, I welcome user Netwait. Howdy to ya. I hope you become a contributive editor of Wikipedia. Secondly, what happened to the "famed bapudian canon" that this article was originally created off of as a source? Incidentially, what is the name of that local community college that's being worked with? Who's the contact there? You know, when I first voted, I thought this article was a farce, a joke worthy of speedy deletion. But, I saw efforts being made to change it. It's not even the same article, really. It's changed meanings and interpretations several times. And now... I still think that something is fishy. First edits being made here, of all places? It's odd. I've been trying to avoid thinking sockpuppet all this time, trying to assume good faith, but, this just doesn't sit right with me. I'd like to take this opportunity to cite UrbanDictionary.com. "Bapudi is the crystallized consciousness of Hegelian Mind, embodied through the creative excretions of an underground collective with operatives all over the United States. Privately funded, Bapudi represents one of the last schools of independent thought and action not yet assimilated into True Being. Inchoate and ever-flowing, Bapudi will knock your boots off. Bapudi.com is the official homepage to Bapudi activities, gatherings, and happenings this side of the Peiking Delta." The Wikipedia page links to Bapudi.com. While this is not authoritative, conclusive, or really reputable, it in my mind contributes to the many flaws that make this faceitious house of cards topple. My original vote stands and that's my final answer. Thank you. JJJJust 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well said, JJJust. The author and other editors surrounding this article have only tried to muddy the waters and cloud policy that clearly has a mandate to get rid of unsourced, unverifiable, non-notable articles like this. --Kuzaar-T-C- 03:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Kuzaar, I'd be happy to send a DVD of the film and of our grant paperwork. Neither one is online. To what address shall I mail it?Styliztic 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name of the community college is Saddleback Community College. You can contact Charlie Myers, the film professor, at 949-582-4209 or [email protected]. We also produced "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" with the Art Center College of Design. You can contact my professor Gabor Kalman (a renowned documentary filmmaker -- see http://architettura.supereva.com/image/festival/2000/en/works/2000160.htm) at 213-200-8179 or [email protected]. Incidentally, we won three separate awards at the Saddleback College Film Festivals in 2003, 2004 and 2005. You are welcome to ask Charlie Myers about that. I don't see how my inexperience as a wikipedia editor or a weird quote on the urban dictionary (of which I was unaware) invalidates our argument. I also don't see how reasoned arguments based on the wikipedia rules and guidelines -- which we have been carefully studying -- constitutes "muddying the waters". I hope the Wikipedia admins are more willing to parse this based on the facts than the editing community.Styliztic 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Check the talk page of the AFD, please, this page is more than 30kb long. For the record, my issues with the article are the author's inability to explain the nature of the subject, the unverified/unverifiable claims, the blatant lack of third party sources detailing the subject, and the pitiful number of google hits for Bapudi. Also for the record; Your inexperience as a Wikipedia editor is not at issue. At issue is the fact that several newly created accounts have come here, of all places, to express their opinions, leading me to suspect sockpuppetry. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, I think we need to involve an admin. Kuzaar has taken this personally and he his shown his bias multiple times. He has deliberatly misinterpreted wikipedia by saying that notability is a guideline, when in fact it is neither a guideline or a policy (he has yet to apoglogize for his error). He has used personal offences against us (please see the The Way of Bapudi incident). And now he claims that Bapudi is pitiful? (Kuzaar, can I say that you are pitiful, using your own metric?). As for the claim of sockpuppetry, again I am insulted. I personally know both GoDelfin and Styliztic, however I'll admit I do not know NetWait. Next time look at our ips and you'll see that we are all in quite different locations. For these offenses I would like to formally request that an admin review this thread as you seem to have taken matters personally. Your insults were bad enough and to be expected, but your mirepresentation of wikipedia policies should have been the final straw. --Japhar8181 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I have not taken matters personally. I referred to the number of google hits, not the subject, as pitiful. As to sockpuppets, that you personally know them is worrying, as asking other people to rally to a cause is a variety of sockpuppetry called "Meatpuppetry", or using others to proxy your vote. I am fully in favor of an admin having a look at this AFD, as I am entirely confident of how I have represented policy and pointing out the article's present violation of the rules as outlined at Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And one last thing, regarding Sockpuppets. The reason I am led to suspect unscrupulous activity is this: Looking at the editors who are arguing to keep on this AFD, I notice that all of them have exclusively edited the article, the article's talk page, or in most cases, this AFD. For many, editing the AFD to talk about how Bapudi's article should be kept is their first action, which is something I nearly always regard as suspicious. That disinterested third party editors somehow gain knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations and processes, and come to talk about it in this AFD, of all places, is not only suspect but an almost irreparable blow to my attempts to assume good faith in this AFD. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So which puppet are we? A meat puppet or a sock puppet? If you're going to be contentious then make your suspicions official and investigate the matter. Otherwise your attacks are just slanderous. And you have yet to correct yourself when you posted multiple links entitled guidelines that pointed to the notability essay, when in fact, the very essay clearly states it is NOT to be used as a guideline, much less policy. And despite your numerous attacks using it as a guidline you've changed your argument. If anything here is suspicious, its your motivations. --Japhar8181 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You are making an ad hominem attack, Kuzaar. Why should our editing status matter more than the evidence we present and the arguments we make? You have repeatedly ignored my questions. You have not looked at the sources I offer. This process is deperate need of an audit. You write, "That disinterested third party editors somehow gain knowledge of Wikipedia's regulations and processes, and come to talk about it in this AFD, of all places, is not only suspect but an almost irreparable blow to my attempts to assume good faith in this AFD." Wikipedia's regulations and process are posted freely for all to see and participate in. We have merely done our research, and I believe your attempt to paint this as insidious or dishonest is a violation of the good faith under which these proceedings are intended to occur.Styliztic 16:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Kuzaar has yet to address any of my arguments. I have offered concrete evidence (a 40 minute film and grant paperwork) of verifiability, and he seems to have no interest in even looking at it. How can you continue to claim that we have no third party sources when you refuse to look? The CCH webpage clearly lists "The Rise and Fall of Irvine Meadows West" as a grant recipient (http://www.calhum.org/programs/story_rise_fall.htm) and lists my name as the project director. The film's website (www.trailerparkfilm.com) has clear reference to Bapudi Films (see the bottom of the page). At least look at the sources we present! If you refuse to even consider the sources or our arguments, how can you claim to be participating in the AfD process in good faith? For the record, your issues with the article are unsubstantiated. The article clearly explains the nature of the subject: "Bapudi is an identity given to creative works that have included filmmaking and electronic music." It also makes no unverifiable claims, and it has several clear third-party sources. Read it!Styliztic 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    JJJust, did you check out my contacts at Saddleback College and Art Center? You asked for the information, at least be courteous enough to investigate it.Styliztic 16:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are the sources you have cited readily available to a third-party interested editor? Is there any way via public record that an editor can verify your claims? I'm looking for a link or something I can immediately see that correlates what you claim to reality. Bapudi is not credited with anything verifiable on that website, only a link saying "Powered by Bapudi.com". The hardcopy of the film is not public record, and does not meep WP:V. Further, about your accusations of an ad-hom attack: I have not made an ad hominem attack, but rather pointed out to the closing admin that he/she might discount the opinions of those editors, being that they may be accounts registered just to stuff the ballot at this AFD, as the evidence provided by their contributions will show. Please, if you wish to discuss this further, please address the questions, point by point, that I have put on the talk page of this AFD, at the tab at the top. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:One more thing -- no one is using anyone else to proxy a vote. The fact that a number of people support Bapudi's inclusion in Wikipedia is not a trick or a sham. Is it unusual that we know each other? Would you be suspicious if six different researchers in a narrow scientific field knew each other? Of course not. Again, I believe the focus should be on the facts and the arguments we present (which you have ignored).Styliztic 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not ignored your arguments. I have stated several times now, as in my above note, that the sources you have provided do not directly deal with or explain the article's subject, and in many cases do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability. And even if you are six people who know eachother, a number of those people appear to have registered accounts just for the purposes of upsetting the process, and that is a fact that should not be overlooked. Again, if you would like to address the questions I have raised, one at a time, on the talk page of this AFD, I would reconsider my position. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Kuzaar, I will answer your questions one by one. 1) "What are you referring to when you say Bapudi" Bapudi is an organization that produces music and films. It states this in the entry. 2) "What verifiable evidence that you have that Bapudi exists?" Our film has been awarded a grant by the CCH. Here is the web URL: http://www.calhum.org/programs/story_rise_fall.htm. The CCH website does not mention Bapudi Films, but I have emailed them to ammend our entry. It does mention my name (Robert McLendon), and I am the director and manager of Bapudi Films. If you wish, we can put a big banner of the film's website that says "Produced by Bapudi Films". Would that clear things up for you? 3) The Search Engine Test page says: "Q. What is the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up? (3? 27? 81?) A. Perhaps a few hundred, but this depends on several things:" We have more than a few hundred. Also, the page makes it clear that the search engine test is subjective, and that entries with as few as 15 hits have been accepted, and that, "some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive." 4) I can't speak to the nonsense that had been on the page. I didn't post the original entry, nor ask for it to be posted. I only came into this when I learned that the entry made mention of my film and my production company. As far as being credited on a film, I CAN SEND YOU A COPY OF THE FILM. It is a 40 minute documentary, with hundreds of cuts. I can show your our Adobe Premiere files. You let me know what you would consider evidence that my film isn't "woven from whole cloth" and I'll be happy to submit it.Styliztic 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I have specifically responded to your questions, will you take this discussion a bit more seriously, and stop accusing me of bad faith? This process has become bizaare and Kafkaesque.Styliztic 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention: Please see the continuing thread on the discussion page.Styliztic 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if the AFD process is any more protracted than it has to be. Ordinarily it is closed after five days, but there is currently a backlog. Here is my response, as copied from the talk section, to the above users: In light of the new clarity that your answers have brought to the situation, your organization does not pass inclusion guidelines as set out in WP:MUSIC (regarding the musical aspect of Bapudi, or the WP:ORG proposed guideline. The reason I've asked the above questions is to divine precisely where the article's subject would fit in, and in view of the newly revealed information, it doesn't appear appropriate in this light, either. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Mellor[edit]

Neither the article nor a Google search seems to show anything which meets the guideline WP:MUSIC or come very close to it. Jll 18:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-level programming language[edit]

This term is made-up. It has no reputable sources, and as a result it shows no sources. This page largely constitutes original research. ProgrammerGuy 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tevildo 19:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above, and it fails the Google test:
A Google search for "medium-level" programming returns 92,800 results. This is nothing compared to 41,000,000 results for "high-level" programming and 16,300,000 results for "low-level" programming. ProgrammerGuy 19:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not a well defined or useful term. Artw 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't cite any languages that fit the criterion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's a pile of crock, really. 70.17.42.8 01:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary's Babies[edit]

This article was speedied several times by different folks, but I am now convinced that it asserts notability. I bring it to AfD for evaluation of the verifiability and notability of the asserted claims. Xoloz 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if verified. Certainly notable if one of the members did indeed go on to play with Danzig. I note the article doesn't say who that is, but that goes to verifiability. Tevildo 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified. There are unsupported claims to notability in the article; with references it should be fine. -Fsotrain09 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep. Not only is notability clear, but verified by the links provided in the article! Parsssseltongue 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This doesn't fit any of the criteria for being speedily kept. -- Kicking222 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you! :) I think I'm misinterpreting something here... I'll find you on your talk page. Parsssseltongue 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article asserts sufficient notability, and meets WP:MUSIC by, if nothing else, having a member that went on to play in Danzig. Although I'm voting keep, I would very much like to see the article cleaned up. - -Kicking222 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to offer my own view of the history of the band. Rosemary's Babies. I personally knew all he members. Yes one memeber did go on to do some notable work with Danzig (Glen Anzalone from Lodi NJ) Eric Stellman. AKA Eri Von. The band was tight, exceptional passionate, very fast, and had a great deal to say about important relevant topics that still apply more than 23 years after I saw the last show. I should know my best friend was Lead vocalist. JR. I wouldn't want to see the particular entry removed. While the information could have been a little more in detail it is quite precise. I could write quite a bit more here but I will leave that open for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.164.37 (talk • contribs)
    • Please do not delete AfD info. Parsssseltongue 16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure they were very talented people. However, this is an encyclopedia, and there are certain standards of verifiability and notability. Detail/precision is not really the issue. Thanks for understanding. -Fsotrain09 16:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: Speedily deleted - useless content. - Mike Rosoft 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive Postapocalypticism[edit]

Original research, google turns up nothing about this trait. Also this belief was created by Urban Scout, and ironically enough so was this article Wildthing61476 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly a joke, and not even a good one. <KF> 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, no notability. Already up for a G1, incidentally. Tevildo 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 18:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonclarken[edit]

Church campground; no notability asserted and inherently nonnotable —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NawlinWiki (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, also as an advertisement. Melchoir 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It offers an interesting variety of programs and activities, and it is one of the most notable things about Flat Rock, N.C. (and is a significant employer there). There is ample precedent for listng campground and conference facilities. TruthbringerToronto 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert notability. While there are other camp articles, when they get found and brought here they regularly get deleted. No independent reliable sources cited. If it is verifiably that important to Flat Rock , it should be in the article for it. And which Flat Rock, N.C. anyway? The link is to a disambiguation page because there are three of them. GRBerry 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps Merge. See also The Columbia Gazetteer of North America — Bonclarken ("Bonclarken, N.C.: see Flat Rock.") and The Columbia Gazetteer of North America — Flat Rock ("... Nearby is Bonclarken, with church assembly grounds. ..."), which both indicate Bonclarken, N.C. as a locality of some sort that may be of equal notability as any of the other thousands of towns and places on Wikipedia. However, this locality may be larger than the campground and ministry—in which case the article would need to become more general and have the campground as one, major, part—or the locality may be totally subordinate to Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina—though the Gazetteer would tend to discount that—and would therefore would warrant merger. In either case, it needs to be fixed up. —Centrx→talk 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This book, Flat Rock, could serve as somewhat of a source of the history of the conference center. —Centrx→talk 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think that there is actually much precedent, as TruthbringerToronto suggests above, that articles about campgrounds or conference facilities are to be kept. If it is the only notable thing about Flat Rock, then great, we'll have something to add to the Flat Rock article. Pascal.Tesson 22:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't see anything notable about this. Just because some people work there there is no need to list is specifically. It could be mentioned in the Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina article however. Inner Earth 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116[edit]

Delete VfD 1 1/2 years ago ended "keep" because the user who nominated it was up for RfC, and nominated the article poorly and apparently to make a WP:POINT. The kid was not acutally named that. They intended to and the court would not let them. This is manufactured notability. WP:NOT for things invented in school the crack-addled brain one day! Please, for the love of Wikipedia, get this thing out of here.- CrazyRussian talk/email 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • What my nom boils down to is, we ought not reward these people with NOTABILITY for their arbitrary actions. Any one of us could have done that - if this is kept, there are no barriers to notability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We also don't reward criminals for their actions, but they still get an article, because they get press attention and people want to know about them. The same goes here. The sheer ridiculousness of the name draws interest from people. - Mgm|(talk) 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable enough to need an entire article by itself; merge content into an article with a title like "laws relating to naming of children", and then delete. -- Karada 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karada, to validly merge any content the history needs to be kept too. Either you have to get an admin to do a history merge or retain a redirect. Deleting a history after merging its content is not correct procedure. See Wikipedia:Merge. - Mgm|(talk) 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I have to vote delete here. While I think this passes the notability test, unfortunately it fails to pass the verifiability test. I got 150 links into the Google results without finding a result that wasn't foreign language, a forum posting or a Wikipedia clone. I found the original reference. Change to no vote. DJ Clayworth 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's a _little_ bit in the article that goes beyond other odd names listed on the List of unusual personal names page, and some sources are cited. Tevildo 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only articles that link to this nontrivially are List of personal names that contain numbers and List of unusual personal names, both simply lists. First of all, this means that the article doesn't really contribute to the rest of the encyclopedia. Second, the other articles linked from those lists all seem to have some substantial claim to notability as people, whereas this one is just an anecdote. Finally, the verification worries me too; the sources are weak, and they've clearly been squeezed for every last drop of information. If you have to work that hard, how notable is your subject, really? Melchoir 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, verifiable article on an unusual subject. That doesn't make it unencyclopedic. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - manufactured notability or otherwise, it's still a notable subject which deserves an article. Also, policies, guidelines, etc. (such as WP:NFT) are not meant to be bent in such a way as to support a nomination for deletion. Timrem 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... That was verbal flair. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I couldn't think of any better way to say what I wanted. I prefer a more conservative interpretation of the rules, guidelines, etc., while the nomination seems to use them in a more liberal manner. Timrem 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Timrem, notability is notability. Notability by any other name would be as notable. Etc. However, it would be nice to find a link to the original Reuters article to establish stronger verifiability. --Alex S 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Weak Fringing Keep First and foremost, this is a spoken article (that didn't effect my opinion), which is pretty wacky. Though this techinically slips through WP:BIO with one lone newssource from the poorman's New York Times, I think there is a case of notability due to the name challenge and the fact that it exists. I consider the 200 odd g-hits[25] amazing considering the spelling. Though, odd this should meet WP:BIO since it is so unique a name, and according to WP:BIO, notability exists with "Name recognition." And this certainly is a unique and somewhat recognizable name. Yanksox (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alex S and Yanksox. Although this does not affect my vote, I do have to state that I greatly enjoy this case (and the competently-written article describing it). -- Kicking222 21:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I still remember hearing about this when it happened, it was memorable, and in my opinion, notable. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To what? Yanksox (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete This may swing a few opinions as it did with me, but has anyone looked here? It's listed twice, and nothing in the article is really necessary with this information alreadly there. Yanksox (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean listed twice? I see that name only once on the list. There's no rules against linking to a full article for a list entry, in fact, it's the entire point of lists: creating a logical compilation of articles. - Mgm|(talk) 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'A' name is listed there twice, I think if both of those names belong to one person they should stay on the same person. I have to disagree, about the list, if some names can't have notability expanded outside of the fact of having the name, there really shouldn't be an article. Maybe redirect to that list. Yanksox (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they can. The fact it was worldwide news and sprung a court case can and is also noted in the article, it's not just having a name. But to avoid excessive long lists, such information should be in its own article rather than jammed into a list. - Mgm|(talk) 08:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can say what you want about the parents, but the court case an legal crap surrounding this is notable as it made the news worldwide. The list only gives the bare bones, the article goes into more detail and explains more of the background. Anything that has more than a basic definition should have an article and not be bloating a list entry. - Mgm|(talk) 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Manufactured notability maybe, but it succeeded - being in worldwide news = notable. (And it was, I remember it at the time.) (Guess that must have been another insane name battle, I don't think I was reading the news at my age in 1991. Even so, it still was covered.) I also doubt the parents really view this page's existance as a trophy of any sort. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see this article merged into an article about the law in question. It could include what if any controversy surrounded the law's introduction, public reaction, events that led to the case, and fallout (if any) after this case. That would be a good read; if there's insufficient information available, perhaps an article about legal controversies or challenges to laws in Sweden? I'm not familiar enough with the country to recommend a specific place to put it. The information is encyclopedic, it's just a topic that probably won't grow beyond a few paragraphs on its own. Moulder 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Should we expunge all criminals from wikipedia because they manufactured their own notability? This is what wikipedia is most often used for. 69.140.29.103 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is still notable see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 also previous discussion Yuckfoo 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I do not understand why people think "manufactured notability" is not worthy of inclusion - what notability isn't manufactured? Do we only have articles on people and events who are completely at the whim of the elements? By this reasoning, any number of people ranging from Adolf Hitler to William Hung could be deleted. This caused a notable and curious controversy, so of course it belongs here. Jammo (SM247) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about the law, fix links, and delete the redirect as an implausible typo. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as we don't create 500 redirects to it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, it's real, so it deserves an article, and it's of decent size too.--AeomMai 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A lot of electrons are spilled at AfDs about whether or not a topic is real or notable or important. While one would think they were based on their use, there is no policy regarding notability or importance, just guidelines and suggestions. The real question ought to be: "is it encyclopedic?" Does this article provide understanding of the topic at hand so as to its meaning and how it relates to the broader field of knowledge of which it forms part? In pondering this, I read the entry for encyclopedia. I know that's not a policy either, but it certainly provides some guidance. Looking at WP:5P and WP:NOT, I have to conclude that this article is not encyclopedic. It is indiscriminate and trivial. At most, it can be merged into one of the articles suggested above. Agent 86 00:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Very well said, Agent 86, this really gives me something to think about for the next time I submit an article for AfD. ---Charles 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks - It has certainly made me realize that I now have something to think about for the future! In fact, I may make it my personal mantra (not set in stone, of course) before nominating/commenting/etc. on a proposed deletion. Agent 86 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/merge and delete redirect... unless there's a shorthand name for it? Think about it this way, folks: assuming someone knew about the topic, how would they find it in the first place? --Vedek Dukat Talk 04:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I always access it by means of Albin. Other articles also link to it, and others who don't know about it may find it by hitting the random article button. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Melchoir and Agent 86. —Centrx→talk 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Yanksox and Agent 86. ---Charles 06:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, there's no rule saying every article has to be dry and boring. Stev0 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. People "manufacture" notability all the time, some by hook, some by crook. I could "manufacture" my notability by writing a bestseller fantasy trilogy or some other stuff like that. (One day. One day. =) That said, I fail to see the worth of the subject of the article aside of perfectly good material for WP:UA. Even if I'd support unusual "unusual" encyclopedic topics, I'm not sure if this is famous enough of a case. And the title, very heart-wrenchingly because that's the point, is not something people would look for. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. This could later be merged with an article on the Swedish law on personal names, but until that merge target exists, we may as well keep this around (it can't be merged if it is deleted). up+land 10:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously still notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, contains notability, even if the child was never name as such. Jgamekeeper 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above WP 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. A blip on the news. Maybe people manufacture notability all the time, but I see no reason to pander to it. Tychocat 08:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems reasonably notable, also per Uppland. ais523 11:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given and because of the reference to 'pataphysics. --rattUs ratTus 19:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I even remember reading this in the paper. Sarge Baldy 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. W.marsh 18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian universities by endowment[edit]

Nice article, but really unimportant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Extremely strong delete Ardenn 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into List of universities in Canada? Sorting by endowment seems relevant enough; I don't see why it needs a separate article though. Melchoir 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for checking endowment figures. I'd rather have the List of universities in Canada deleted because it's redundant to the category hierarchy. -- Usgnus 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. --Alex S 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good source of information, keep separate page. Cannot be merged with Group of Ten (Canadian universities) because some aren't on the list. YCCHAN 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above per Melchoir -- MrDolomite 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not "really unimportant". Calsicol 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as obviously notable, especially since YCCHAN has pointed out that a similar list exists for American universities. --Cheapestcostavoider 16:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wep (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 June 2006.
  • Keep Financial endowments are becoming more of a focus for Canadian universities. It's become a common topic to compare financial endowments between institutions. --Greenmind 01:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nonsense by Fang Aili. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 19:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cole_Magnon[edit]

either vanity or personal attack. definitely not-notable and almost assuredly deliberately false. frymaster 19:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete hoax page. DrunkenSmurf 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Appeared to be a hoax or bad joke. Unreferenced. — RJH (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge Adding merge tags. W.marsh 18:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean's Guide to Canadian Universities[edit]

Nice article, but really unimportant. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Ardenn 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too much like advertising (concept, not the current content). -- Usgnus 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a legitimate topic, but probably doesn't actually need its own separate article. I'd merge into Maclean's rather than deleting, personally. Bearcat 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. -- Usgnus 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Maclean's per Bearcat. -- Usgnus 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above per Bearcat MrDolomite 16:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --YUL89YYZ 17:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's Largest Poker Chip[edit]

Another self-bootstrapping attempt to copy The Million Dollar Homepage, but this one only gets 9 unique Ghits - nn advertising NawlinWiki 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, A7. An unreleased album is not an assertion of notability, and the rest of the article simply described the inner workings of the band. —Cuiviénen 21:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highbryd[edit]

Prod removed. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC--no released record album: see "(Recording in Progress)" under discography. No presented verfifiable and reliable sources to indicate notability. Nothing on a Google search for "Highbryd" indicates notability; the indie label "Dark/Light Studios" doesn't even come up. "Dan Giza" Highbryd gets only a myspace hit. -- Scientizzle 20:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. The keep comments did not address the strong points for deletion raised by Vegaswikian. Kimchi.sg 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skywards destinations[edit]

Page created by a fan of a frequent flyer program. Skywards is not an airline, so it can't have "destinations". The same user has been spamming other airline pages with links to the Skywards article.

Delete - voting delete since I'm the nominator. Dbinder (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No need to "vote" as (1) this is a discussion, not a vote and votes are unwelcome; and (2) as the person proposing the article for deletion, it is taken as read that you wish for it to be deleted unless you say otherwise. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) I will call it what I want. Also, (2) there is nothing that says the nominator cannot vote, and it is fairly common for the nominator to add a delete line. Dbinder (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (1) This is not a vote. No good comes from calling it a vote when it isn't. This is a discussion, designed to see what the community consensus on the future of the article is. Votes are unwelcome in such a discussion. In fact, votes are likely to be discounted by the closing admin. (2) It is not common for nominators to "vote". It has been uncommon for a while now for nominators to express their opinion outside of their nomination text. And no nominator has "voted" since we abolished voting last year and introduced this consensus method. Thanks. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Woah Woah. I object to this 'spamming' thing. Can I just give you a run down with what I did? I’m a member of Skywards and have an interest in the whole Emirates/Sri Lankan tie. I noticed a few weeks ago that there was no entry for Skywards. I noticed there was entries for alliances such as SkyTeam and oneworld and although Skywards isn't really an alliance. It is an agreement to collect miles via both airlines as they both have an equal part in Skywards. I also thought I knew quite a bit about the frequent flyer program so I could write a fairly decent article. The Skywards destinations was simply meant in the same way SkyTeam has a page of where their member airlines fly to, I created a page for where the members of Skywards flies to. I wasn’t trying to be malicious. In response to this ‘spamming’ thing. I didn’t mean to ‘spam’. It wasn’t pointless vandalism across random entries. I only did around 5 entries where information on alliances had already been brought up. I put a 2 sentence paragraph informing that flyers could earn miles with Skywards as well. It wasn’t meant to be malicious or Spam. I’m just trying to create a more detailed entry. -User:Coolmark1800:01, 21 June 2006 (BST)
  • Keep this falls into the same category as Skyteam destinations, Star Alliance destinations, and Oneworld destinations. Ziggurat 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-organizational list. Not encyclopedic. The others should be deleted as well. —Centrx→talk 05:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the same way many other Alliance Destination pages are available, Skywards is no different. We need to be consistent. User:Coolmark18 08:09, 23 June 2006 (BST)
  • Strong Delete. Skywards is not an airline or an airline alliance. As such it can not provide flights to any destinations so it can't have destinations hence no article. What country is their operating certificate(s) issued from? To try and equate a travel awards loyality program with a marketing alliance that offers code share connections between various airlines is so wrong in so many ways. This would be the same as listing all of the things you can purchase with any loyality based program. Vegaswikian 07:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Could you not say that Emirates and Sri Lankan have formed an alliance? See Airline alliance Coolmark18 15:28, 24 June 2006 (BST)
      • They appear to have established a code share agreement and a shared loyality program. That is a far cry from an alliance as used in the examples here. Vegaswikian 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please, and move it to Wikitravel.-choster 15:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Move to wikitravel if appropriate, but Wikipedia's not the the place for this. Inner Earth 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-oficial regions of Spain[edit]

Fails NPOV and nothing here that is not covered elsewhere. A potential reaction to the recent ballot in Catalonia Nuttah68 21:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge The article is not non NPOV, however, such content should be merged into an article related to the subdivision of Spain, it isn't already present there. Afonso Silva 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Catalunya not oficial? That's uncomplete! </unfair> POV forking. ~ trialsanderrors 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the article actually says is that the nationality catalunya is not official, and, along with that, several territories of the Catalonian nation are not part of the official autonomous region of Catalunya. The same for the Basque Country. Afonso Silva 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I'm not sure why the article is named ...of Spain if some of the regions listed are in France or Andorra. I didn't look, but I'm positive this is covered better (and more coherently) elsewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 08:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the irony of having non-official lists in Wikipedia alone is cause to remove. If content is legit, then move into Spain -- MrDolomite 16:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should have its name changed to Unofficial regions of Spain Chris5897 20:59 22 June 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless in Denton[edit]

Yes, this entry should be deleted. The only argument I could see is for indirect inclusion if it were mentioned in passing in a single article or stub discussing university and junior college local-access TV programming, with a link perhaps to the NTTV article. I live in Denton and have seen the show and although it's not my cup of tea, the work ethic of the producers, somewhat ironically, is notable insofar as they keep cranking out content. Still: there are many, many thousands of local-access tv programs being produced all over the country, and most do not merit their own entry. Should every program aired by a local television station in the US get a wiki entry? It has nothing to do with the point(s) of view expressed or production values, but the questions of

1.site bloat and ensuring that the finite,nonprofit resources of wikipedia are not squandered on ephemera, and

2. the question of wikipedia's struggle for credibility in the eyes of the general public. Jonathan Versen 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnotable local access TV showNawlinWiki 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is very notable if you are from North Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.10.46 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete There are too many local cable shows cropping up by people who seem to believe that making a Wikipedia page is the ticket to national fame. Sorry, but no. Danny Lilithborne 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. nn. Ziggurat 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not currently notable as far as I can see. DrunkenSmurf 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with DannyLitithborne above.
  • DO NOT DELETE, the person who created this page has no affiliation with the show. And no, it would not be notable, unless AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, you live in Denton. In which case it is incredibly notable. It is a legitimate and actual television program. Furthurmore, following the previous arguments for deletion, every entry that applies to only a specific geographic location, or is not widely known should be marked for deletion as well. This isn't NAZIpedia for god sakes, its wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osro 19:04, 21 June 21 2006 - User's 6th edit (talk • contribs)
  • Yeah, and per your last comment. it's not Flame-o-pedia, Godwin's-Law-pedia, or -- most importantly -- Dentonpedia. Important in Denton (assuming that's true) doesn't necessarily mean important anywhere else. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The less said about the Ghits... well, I got 10 results, six of those being about actual homeless people. One website appeared to directly address the series, and I think it's the producers' website. Two mentions from MySpace. Not that Google should be the be-all of notability, but the worst Ghits I'd recall being debated before was, like, 100. Tychocat 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE You know what, you guys take yourselves way too seriously. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of all knowledge, I guess you all missed that. And Calton, did you come up with "Flame-o-pedia" all by yourself, or did you receive some help on that one big boy? You people are jokes. (Unsigned comment posted 08:51, June 23, 2006 by 170.148.10.46 )
  • Someone who thinks "Nazipedia" is clever is criticizing MY choices? Pull the other one. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. W.marsh 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Spirit[edit]

RPG of limited notability, possible vanity. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per article it's only been running for 6 months. Nothing notable I can find of yet. DrunkenSmurf 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Most all of the Google hits for — "Wild Spirit" rpg — are unrelated, and this is an online game. —Centrx→talk 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 speedily deleted by Kungfuadam under CSD A7. Sango123 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Freedman[edit]

There is no real reason given in the article as to why the author of the article is widely enough known to merit an article, why at this rate I could write an article on myself. File Éireann 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per WP:NOT spam, article had been prod'd and both were removed without explanation. Also, this link should be noted. Yanksox (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Mr. Freedman is not a notable person. Jacek Kendysz 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and userfy - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not a notable person. --Charlesknight 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - and by "book" he seems to mean "blog entry"! --Charlesknight 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. I tried to find out what popularity the blog at http://garfreed.blogspot.com has, but Alexa aggregates all the pages at blogspot.com rather than listing individual blogs separately. Is there some other way to measure the significance or readership of the site? I'm raising these points because I think a well-read or influential blogger can be notable and I suspect that Gary Freedman might be. See Category:American bloggers TruthbringerToronto 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I always think a good rule of thumb is the number of comments that a blogger gets - notable bloggers tend to get 100s of comments on each of their entries. The best I can find for Gary is 15 comments on one of his entries and if you look those seem to be generated by spamming other blogs. On the actual "novel" he produced, there are only 4 comments - 1 is from him, 2 says "please stop spamming other blogs and the last says "don't get it. What's criteria or methodology have you used to suggest to you that he might be notable? --Charlesknight 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:AUTO ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Textbook vanity page. Not the slightest shred of obvious notability. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy NN vanity bio. Dismas|(talk) 05:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noticed the author has a comment on the Help Desk (not that it changes much), here it is- Wikipedia:Help Desk#Article re: "GARY FREEDMAN" -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bearing with me. I revised the entry again to state expressly that the blog is a "notable modern example of the medieval Hebrew literary device known as melitzah." The blog is notable not because it is well known, it is notable as one of the few axamples of an existing literary device.--Garyfreedman 18:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)--Garyfreedman 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete NN - Mo-Al 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Interestingly, the list of bands on their website has disappeared. Kimchi.sg 15:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Records[edit]

nn., fails to meet WP:CORP Wisden17 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. This is an independent record label which has released records for several different artists, which are listed at http://grimrecords.necrobation.org/shop.html Within the context of a specialized musical genre, this record label may well be significant. I imagine that some of the records might be bought by people who don't even like the music, just for the shock value. Some of the song titles are quite interesting. I would like to know which country it is located in, through, so that the article could be placed in a more specific category. TruthbringerToronto 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the context of a specialized musical genre, this record label may well be significant I'm sorry, "may well be"? Whatever happened to, I dunno, evidence? --Calton | Talk 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some tiny little proof of the tiniest shred of notability might be good. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 kept no consensus Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthlessreviews.com[edit]

Read like an advertisement, promotion page and notability has been questioned Riadlem 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to delete this entry. Ruthlessreviews isn't a commercial website, it's a critical resource which has been steadily rising in readership for a few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.6 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete. Only valid claim to notability is an article in WorldNetDaily which mentions a stunt the website did. Everything else is vanicruftisement. Fagstein 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) - **Note this vote was inexplicably removed by anon user. Thanks Wep for noticing. Fagstein 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. RexNL 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. User Riadlem has brought about this AfD under dishonest charges; please see [27] for his specific charges, and see that not only are the most egregious ones nowhere present in the version to which I revert [28], but any examples he has provided which are in said version are non advert/self-promotional issues. Someone have a link to RfC procedures so that I can inflict and equal amount of wasted time upon this Riadlem? At best, user Riadlem is guilty of a reading and comprehension disability—being unable to differentiate vastly different articles (in terms of content), and should perhaps think twice about continuing to edit Wikipedia given his glaring deficiencies. carefully examine the differences in edits before making such claims.dfg 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are against Wiki policy. Please keep it civil. IrishGuy talk 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; my apologies. Fixed. dfg 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough interest in this article to keep fighting. If notability can be established with more citations and language used match encyclopedic standards as well as POV eliminated, then I have no problem with the article staying. Riadlem 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very convenient of you to completely ignore the specific charges. I will consider it an admission of guilt. Carry on. dfg 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am guilty of feeling attacked. I don't want to make it personal. But I first only tagged it as POV not asked for deletion. I made the mistake of reverting the second time, I admit. As one of the owner of the sire, I can understand that you want this article to stay but I still feel that the tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I am sure other Wikipedia editors , more knowledgeable on this kind of sites, could help you figure out a proper entry for your site if they judged it appropriate for inclusion. Riadlem 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am being accused of having a seriously-vested interest, when I never have stated such, other than being a fan of the site? No, I am not an owner of said site. I merely have repeatedly expressed my frustration in your attempts to have the article deleted rather than cleaned up. This whole debacle was competely unnecessary. This is not at all to say that the entry does not need work. It does. A good day to you, sir. dfg 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article may require cleanup, but there are no grounds for deletion. The site is well-known, and the 80s Action Guide in particular is popular internet folklore. Documentation is, as such, encyclopaedic.GideonF 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article doesn't cover notability requirements per WP:WEB TheJC TalkContributions 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ruthlessreviews.com is considered notable enough by IMDb for them to link to it, and the fact that it is the only review site flagged by IMDb as "potentially offensive" attests to its notability.GideonF 21:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Site is notable enough for an article. Fractured_leader 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What GideonF said. Needs clean-up and neutral tone, not a deletion. PhilippN 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. if cleaned as stated by GideonF and forum users [29] Wep 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a cleanup, but it is linked by Imdb and other film sites, so is significant enough to warrant continued article Franger 07:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_United_States_musicians[edit]

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]

  • Delete per nom. —Centrx→talk 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Stellis, let us not relist everything into every possible combination -- MrDolomite 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also looks like advertising for being a "Yellow Pages" for Musicians. Tychocat 09:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Won't be maintained anywhere near as well as the categories. Calsicol 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zortam[edit]

Delete Blatant commercial advertising. AlistairMcMillan 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Zortam was pioneer in ID3 tagging starting from 2002 special with implementing all futures of ID3 standard. It was developed way before iTunes, MediaMonkey and other taggers that have articles in Wikipedia. It introduced saving cover arts and lyrics to ID3 tags which made Mp3 so popular on iPods and other portable Mp3 devices. It is also translated on 10 different languages helping people around the world to tag their files. Zortam Forum helps thousand people on daily basis to uderstand what does mean tagging and how to tag their Mp3 files.zgvozden→talk 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising, no notability given or implied. Tychocat 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Petros471 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zortam Mp3 Media Studio[edit]

Delete Advert. AlistairMcMillan 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable software and advert. Lots of software get CNet entries, why does this one deserve an article? Kimchi.sg 00:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is listed as a "Popular" download at download.com, and it is mentioned in the two published books at the bottom of the article, though its >200,000 Google hits appear to be mostly software repositories/download sites. Also, the first paragraph is copied from the Zortam website and the screenshot is also copied from there, though it is a screenshot and so may be okay. At the very least the article would need to be cleaned up. —Centrx→talk 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Zortam was pioneer in ID3 tagging starting from 2002 specially with implementing all futures of ID3 standard. It was developed way before iTunes, MediaMonkey and other taggers that have articles in Wikipedia. It introduced saving cover arts and lyrics to ID3 tags which made Mp3 so popular on iPods and other portable Mp3 devices. It is also translated into 10 different languages helping people around the world to tag their files. Zortam Forum helps thousand people on daily basis to uderstand what does mean tagging and how to tag their Mp3 files.zgvozden→talk 09:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide sources to back up these claims. Particularly the one that states Zortam, which was releaed in 2002, was "developed way before iTunes", which was released in 2001. Particularly when iTunes was just a re-engineered program called SoundJam, which was released in the late 1990s. AlistairMcMillan 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about iTunes for Windows. Zortam Mp3 Media Studio works only on Windows platform but we have plans to port it to Mac OSX and linux because people would like to see Zortam Mp3 Media Studio also on MAC OSX and linux. Check this link [MP3 Media Studio for Mac OSX? ] zgvozden 06:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have misunderstood Alistair's question. The main point of it is: Are there any other places (online or offline), besides the descriptions on download sites and your own website, which say that your software is indeed the first to have these features? Another important question: Are there any newspapers or real-world magazines that mention your software? Kimchi.sg 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zortam Mp3 Media Studio was published on numerous computer newspapers and newspapers CD/DVD in different countries. For recent example you can check this link [Chip Poland]. Zortam Mp3 Media Studio is also placed on the 1'st place by popularity at [Tucows - Audio Tag Editors] category. Regarding Zortam Mp3 Media Studio futures I suggest creating a new article Comparison of tag editors zgvozden 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete nn, advertisement. The Ghits I looked at went to download sites and catalog listings. I admit to fatiguing-out without finding any news articles regarding notability of company or the various undocumented claims made above, so this may not be definitive. Tychocat 09:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check [Zortam News Feed] to get the letest news from Zortam. Zortam News feed is included to numerus feed repositories wild world. Check also Google News. zgvozden 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you provide us with some real independent published reviews? And I don't mean listings on sites like tucows or download.com where "popularity" is simply a count of the number of times it has been downloaded. A number that could easily be fudged. AlistairMcMillan 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mention before reviews about Zortam Mp3 Media Studio were published on numerous computer newspapers in different countries. We have received e-mail request from many computer magazines to publish article about Zortam Mp3 Media Studio. We don't keep track about news releases. It might be that download numbers at download.com or tucows.com can be fudged for short time, but my opinion is that they are pretty much real. Nothing is perfect but download.com and tucows.com are one of the best software downloaded sites that we have today. zgvozden 08:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

No one here has ever been laid.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure cirkus[edit]

Reason being Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement; mostly the "spam" and "isement". It was tagged for speedy deletion a while back [30], but the tag was removed with an unclear edit summary [31], and with no further explanation on the talk page. Since then, it has been edited by User:Purecirkus and put in the first person [32]. Purecirkus's only two edits have been to this page. The article is clear advertisement. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can barely tell what this is supposed to be. Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and for non-notability. Tevildo 23:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per nom. Note that what User:Purecirkus added was a copyvio of [33] (everything after the first paragraph copyed from entry #11 in the source). I have reverted to the last version before him. May change vote to keep if mentions of this company from reliable sources are listed. Kimchi.sg 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tevildo. Inner Earth 14:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I want to know why you all deleted my Circus from this?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merge to Robotech, adding tag. W.marsh 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel (Invid)[edit]

Fancruft Artw 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Robotech per nom. Kimchi.sg 00:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are about a dozen pages on characters from Robotech, Macross, Mospeada, etc. Either they should all be merged to around three or four pages (difficult to handle, since the same characters are appearing in multiple, essentially unrelated series) or they should all be kept. Ben Standeven 03:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trae, The Red Light District Records[edit]

Delete, vanity page that fails WP:MUSIC (only editor is CodyAuippa, only one Google hit when searching for his real name (the article)). Coredesat 23:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for unverifiability:
Tales Of A Hustler, Part 1
Tales Of A Hustler, Part 2
Tales Of A Hustler, Part 3 --Coredesat 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote back to delete, after reading the other discussions. --Coredesat 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 All - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar[edit]

This article was created by a user with a penchant for moving articles and creating peculiar redirects and articles. Wikipedia is not a repository of slapped together genealogical information. Miscellaneous and far-out descents will only make way for more peculiar articles. Charles 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall along the same lines as the first nomination:

Above by Charles 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All per nom. Tevildo 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Kimchi.sg 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. No citations, no verification, no context, no sense. Agent 86 00:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all This is getting out-of-hand; we could have thousands of such pages. Noel S McFerran 01:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trivial, but amusing. Userify. Septentrionalis 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Septentrionalis, very odd "article", could be interesting if elaborated. Gryffindor 06:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; interseting but not encylopedic. Inner Earth 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Calsicol 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lad Laika[edit]

I propose the article for deletion as it is not a notable band in my opinion - see WP:BAND. The song: "Lad is First to the Guillotine": zero google hits:[34]. It was supposed to be downloadable from the website, but that does not appear to be under construction. The band: "Lad Laika": 4 google hits. [35] Jens Nielsen 08:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Jens Nielsen 08:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard the Lad Laika name mentioned on the college station here (KFSR, Fresno), but I do not know if it was "Guillotine" that they played. The website for Decovo says that it is launching this month. If it does not launch by the start of May, then this article should be deleted, probably. That website has been actively advertising for student media contributions on my campus, so I do not think they are vaporous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.54.72.155 (talk • contribs) .
  • I found the Guilotine song. It was not at a legal site but it is out there. He did a version of it for the Sun God thing at my school (UC San Diego) but he was not Lad Laika then, he was just his own name. CORRECTION my mistake, Ive just been told it was the DJ playing the song, it was not him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.239.174.104 (talk • contribs) .
  • Incomplete nomination listed now. - Liberatore(T) 13:14, 14 June 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, TigerShark 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, only claim to notability is that he originated "the emerging genre of "popdustrumental"", yet has only 7 Google hits? Definitely non-notable. Kimchi.sg 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Richardcavell 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jps IT[edit]

Non-notable software company. Although the article mentions that they "won several awards on the then popular web site www.windows95.com" and created an "utility to work with Trader Media Group web sites in 2006", a Google search finds that there are no reliable sources that mention this company. There are only 730 hits for jps IT -wikipedia, all of them irrelevant except the first - the company's own website. To top it all, there is nothing on the company's own website other than a single ad image. This is surprising given the company has had 10 years to become famous. Delete. Kimchi.sg 23:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people who are fans of Chelsea FC[edit]

Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This information should be the biographies of those people listed (and cited properly). I'll see if I can do some of that. Crito2161 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as listcruft. Eddie.willers 00:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very pointless list. There are precedents for deletion here and here. A lot of the names on the list are also highly dubious. I'll add some of those who are genuine fans to the Trivia section at Chelsea F.C. SteveO 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't even do that. "Famous Fans" sections have been dropped from most of the Premier League club artciles as unencyclopaediac. And while I'm here at this AFD - Delete as per Crito2161 (and everyone else). - fchd 15:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous deletions and as a piece of cruft. Jammo (SM247) 00:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminate source of info and cruft.--Jersey Devil 00:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inner Earth 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- MrDolomite 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Anonymous__Anonymous 17:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for so many reasons (most of them summarized ably above). Eluchil404 02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_June_20&oldid=1081096225"