Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 26 June 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Avi 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies[edit]

Nominated because almost every article this list links to is non-existant, and therefore I cannot see what purpose this article could serve. --NicAgent 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lists are not encyclopedic unless they are a necessary part of an article (to better explain or describe the significance of the article or to contribute to a greater understanding of the article). This list does not do anything to help better understand the main subject matter or the significance of the subject, especially if the articles are non-existent. Agent 86 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is an encyclopedia, and this is very very helpful information! I can see the potential for many people to use this as a reference--Blog Mav Rick 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, although, the links aren't connected quite yet, there will be pages spawned that will provide very helpful information on those law enforcement agencies.--Blog Mav Rick 23:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful list, and has been around since June 2005. But it could stand to be cleaned up a bit - way too many red links. Those folks adding red links should work on creating articles (stubs even!) for the agencies they're adding to the list. BrownHornet21 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At least in my ernest opinion, lists of any type on Wikipedia should be mostly of articles that DO exist, and for lists like this, why not simply use Google for that very purpose? --NicAgent 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the list, you will see that most of the red links are only in a few states. Many of the other states have no red links or a good number of links to real articles. Vegaswikian 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide a link to google's structured list of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Chicheley 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. not howling mad insane listcruft, but still listcruft Bwithh 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have already used the list to dab some links found by looking at the list. Most law enforcement agencies merit an article and this is one area that editors have not gotten around to yet so the article will appear. While I would rather use categories, there are some cases when using a list is simply better. In my mind this is one of those cases. Vegaswikian 05:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete useless list with many red links. If the links were created, they would probably be deleted too. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Promising, well structured list. Chicheley 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Law-enforcement agencies are an encyclopedic topic. It should be flagged for red-links, though. Ace of Sevens 15:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Ace.--Aldux 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, listcruft. Yes, law enforcement agencies in general are encyclopedic, but a list is just a list. Tychocat 19:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very interesting subject and just the sort of info I would expect to find here. --JJay 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use Google or DMOZ for this. Too many red links, nothing there. Sandy 23:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very informative. An56 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. What on earth does this have to do with the Israel national football team? This article covers footballers from Israel, whereas INFT covers the much smaller group of footballers who play for Israel. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli footballers playing abroad[edit]

little encyclopedic value. This issue doesn't need separate article I think. This can be also a dangerous precedence. I know that not too much Israeli footballers play abroad but one day someone can create same article with Brazilians and you know thousands of them play abroad. - Darwinek 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Original research, and WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. This has been seen elsewhere, for fans of TV shows to make up an arbitrary category and write down the resulting episode list. Tychocat 11:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic, but rather a barfed up mass of information. If someone can make a compelling agument why Israelis playing soccer outside of Israel is noteworthy, maybe reconsider WilyD 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per no original research.--Isotope23 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CSD#A3 Ste4k 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - with the article on the Israeli football team. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Israel national football team - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful information, but page could be renamed...--Blog Mav Rick 23:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good info. We need more like this for all countries. --JJay 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and NN. Zos 06:19, 30 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. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Communist Party of Australia[edit]

probable spoof, only reference a blog. --Soman 07:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • pleas do not delet the New Communist Party of Australia because it works for the benefit of the comon person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcommunist (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG, only 6 unique Google hits. Nothing verifiable. --Coredesat talk 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What you say it fails states very clearly, "This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This is a deletion to dissolve the New Communist Party of Australia..." SM247 08:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-Notable. Most hits are to the "new" (i.e. newly formed) Communist Party of Australia, and the Blog notes that it only has between 5 to 7 members. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:ORG --Nscheffey(T/C) 10:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of verifiability and notability. JPD (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not registered by Australian Electoral Commission - see this search, but I have tried other combinations.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm guessing it's made up. --Roisterer 12:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a soapbox. michael talk 13:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably some kids idea, while being a worthy article, it doesnt have a place on wikipedia. Zhukov 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is unverifiable as it is not registered by the Australian Electoral Commission and there have been no references that I can find in the Australian media. Capitalistroadster 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What does the Australian Electoral Commission have to do with verifiability? It's obviously not a huge group, and they may not have officially declared any candidates yet. It doesn't make it unverifiable.KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it has between 5 and 7 members, according to the article. - Richardcavell 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not registered as a political party- just a bunch of people protesting and this isn't a soapbox.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and NN. Zos 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite my comments to some others. They lack an actual webpage and that is the only source. However, if the party does become notable, I suggest the author recreates the article.KV(Talk) 06:34, 30 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. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occlusionist[edit]

the use of "occlusions" or similar words may be common in this sense, but Google only fetches 35 results for "occlusionist", and none of them relate to this. AdamBiswanger1 00:00, 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 redirect to Camel. Good work on noticing the nihilartikel. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Camel[edit]

Likely a hoax. No Google results for "James Douglas Stettin" except this article. Thanks to User:A childish "got you!" for pointing this out in Nihilartikel [1]. SCHZMO ✍ 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep/confused why do you want to delete [Camel]? perhaps there is some vandalism going on here?? Perhaps somebody needs to be banned?--Nick Y. 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps someone needs to WP:AGF and check their page histories. This was a hijacked redir page that has already been moved back. BoojiBoy 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not a redir page before. It was created as a hoax by a user with the page's creation as the only edit in their history. --LambiamTalk 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete we do not need to redirect "The camel" to "camel" and yes there was some dubious material there before. Shimgray may have acted in good faith but inappropriuately by redirecting. --Nick Y. 00:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A redirect cannot be deleted on the AFD page. You need to go to RFD to do that. The only thing that can be deleted here is the main camel article. You may want to change your vote since it appears clear that this is not what you want done.67.71.77.145 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion, I created this page before Shimgray redirected it to Camel. And I do not want to delete the new redirect. SCHZMO ✍ 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q So what are we discussing here, the prose poem article? It would be nice if people didn't put redirects in articles that are under AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator and nomination in the wrong place anyway. —EdGl 03:30, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting for Flowers[edit]

0 Ghits outside of Wikipedia, appears to be a student production. Artw 00:16, 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 Merge with Mystery Science Theater 3000 - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doorway Sequence[edit]

Fancruft Artw 00:25, 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. DS 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Technology[edit]

advertisement Travelbird 00:28, 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. Avi 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Attraction[edit]

Mumbo-jumbo, original research. --Aoratos 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note as below (03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)) that this article has been almost entirely rewritten—and renamed— since the above nom was made. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty much as above. There's already an Esther Hicks page, but I don;t think naything from here is worth merging. Artw 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - a load of old pony. --Charlesknight 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Mumbo-jumbo. Couldn't have said it better myself. I might have to use that one more often AdamBiswanger1 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't see why this article was proposed for deletion in the first place. There are 435,000 google hits. It is quite obvious that this concept is in wide use by many people and the article needs to be expanded to study this. The objections raised so far are OR and POV. We're not interested in whether editors think something is mumbo-jumbo. We're interested in whether something is sufficiently widespread and of note to merit an encyclopedia article. This obviously is. I'm sure a lot of people consider consider that Christianity is mumbo-jumbo. That is not a reason to delete the article on Christianity. There is no wiki criterion for "mumbo jumbo". There is one on "patent nonsense" and this is already addressed on the article talk page:
This self-help maxim is not patent nonsense according to Wikipedia's criterion. Spacepotato 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should have been continued before the article was put up for deletion. Tyrenius 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Law of Subtraction" gets 2,370,000 ghits. This is not a criterion for notability. Notability has to be established by relying on reliable sources. This hasn't been done in this case. Crum375 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record "Law of Subtraction" gets 50 Ghits and there is an article on Subtraction. The Google test is widely accepted as an indicator of whether a subject is sufficiently widespread to merit inclusion. Tyrenius 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Law of Attraction and new age has 87,200 Ghits, many copies of each other. Presumably Law of subtraction is not what you guys wanted to search for? ---CH 04:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOW if under this name. I can't think of a good name for the article, but if it's moved elsewhere, with the redirect killed, I'd have to consider it more carefully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) .
    • Comment I think my signature was deleted. That vote is now a nullity, as the article has been rewritten and moved. I'm still leaning delete, but I'll have to consider the options carefully. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, unsourced except that "it's what Esther Hicks says". NawlinWiki 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (latest version). non notable original research. Crum375 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have I missed something—how can it be non-notable if it is in such widespread use? Tyrenius 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because it is a term used by different people to mean different things, and hence too ambiguous. In any case, one would have to point to valid reliable sources to make a case for notability, which is not in the current article. Crum375 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I focused with my mind, and this article was deleted. Oh wait, it didn't work? Opabinia regalis 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utilize the Law of Deletion, fails WP:NOR, WP:NN. --Coredesat talk 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Weak Keep per above. Adds nothing, and looks more advertisement than article. per Tyrenius rewrite. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have rewritten this article from NPOV citing sources. There is virtually nothing apart from the title remaining of the original, to which the above comments apply. Tyrenius 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NawlinWiki. (The magnet analogy in the article also makes no sense: only negative and positive attract; negative and negative repel as do positive and positive). Agent 86 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a neologism or OR, a concept which has been propounded at length by many people. See Tyrenius' comment above. SM247 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it could be useful as it is part of "new age philosophy" but I would agree with the nomination statement - mumbo jumbo. Benjaminstewart05 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but Very Strong Rename to Law of Attraction (New Age) or something if kept. I think I'm right in saying that Law of Attraction most commonly refers to Gravitation. That's a real law. If this "New Age philosophical concept" is kept, it's gotta be renamed and a disambig or somesuch created, linking to old Newton's efforts first, or this will start to look like Wackypedia. (Renamed OK) --DaveG12345 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, with that out of the way, books about this "New Age" concept do seem to exist, so the WP:NOR fails above seem out-of-date (the article has been re-written). There is a slight problem in that, e.g., "Law of Attraction" is mentioned just once in the article about Esther Hicks, supposedly one of the "philosophy"'s leading exponents, and that's only in the name of an external link to a forum with 16 registered users. Ideally, I would like more reliable evidence than this, showing it is a notable New Age terminology, and not just flavour-of-the-month for "seek and ye shall find" and other "philosophical formulations" of the surprisingly self-evident and obvious. --DaveG12345 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - not a neologism or OR as noted by SM247, evident from the list of authors who have written about it. Seems to be a genuine notable New Age concept. It should be renamed, though, as it could get confused for gravity and sexual attraction. "Law of Attraction (New Age)" as proposed by DaveG or "Law of Attraction (New Age philosophy)" would do. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename-apparently a New Age concept, but definitely needs to be Law of Attraction (New Age) or something similar. --Nscheffey(T/C) 10:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just spent 3 hours trawling through numerous New Age web sites concerning the "Law of Attraction". They are fairly consistent in their use of this term and mostly refer to Hicks. There are 79,900 Ghits for "Law of Attraction"+Hicks. The argument that this is "mumbo jumbo" is not grounds for deletion. It is at the moment pure POV on behalf of editors saying it. Verifiable sources should be provided that say it is mumbo-jumbo, and this viewpoint can then be included in the article. I have been trying to find a suitable source via 409 Ghits. Maybe someone else can do better. I have moved the page to Law of Attraction (New Age) per above comments.Tyrenius 12:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Googling around some, I agree it seems that Esther Hicks et Al. are heavily promoting this concept as a money maker for them. It seems they do such a good job at promotion that notability is established, IMO. I change my vote to neutral for now, as my concern is WP becoming a vehicle for continued promotion. Crum375 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Sure, it's mumbo jumbo, but a lot of people believe that mumbo jumbo. MaxMangel 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure it's stupid, but it's noteworthy stupidity, as far as I can see. WilyD 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. I saved this thing from speedy because I had heard of it from hick "self-educated" relatives and a few dingbat "free-thinking" ex-girlfriends. It is idiocy, but it is widespread idiocy. As per the example of Creationism, Wikipedia embraces articles on all that is encyclopedically notable, irrespective of any opinions on the wisdom of those subjects. Xoloz 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:VER, WP:RS, might pass WP:BJ, but I doubt it. Ste4k 07:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Mumbo-jumbo is NOT an arguement, it's an opinion. This article have lots or support via visits and interest. Don't let your OR or POV block the main viewpoint, which is the interest in the statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.134.42 (talk • contribs) 17:50, June 27, 2006 (UTC).
  • Note this is this user's only contribution. Crum375 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help me expand! Anyone is welcome to help me edit the page. The subject is not what's being discussed, is it? What is discussed here is the Wikipedia entry, if it should stay or not. You may insert a chapter in the entry with criticism against the concept, but instead of defending a veto, help me add another interesting view on the subject. AwenStormFool (talk)
  • Keep, now that it was renamed to include "(New Age)," as it seems to pass wikipedia criteria. Can someone create a disambiguation page, though? There's a movie called Laws of Attraction, and there should probably be a link to "gravity" on the disambiguation page as well. Universitytruth 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep from an avowed deletionist who accepts there are a whole bunch of charlatans reaching out to desperate people out there. Article needs some NPOV balancing though. The renaming helped. could do with more Bwithh 04:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vio NP:NOR-WP:RS. Also, author is AwenStormFool (talk · contribs), a single user account, and I suspect this article may be basically an advert for lawsofattraction.com and other sites mentioned, which apparently provide "new age services" for a fee. ---CH 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think this is a unique subject which will grow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.47.19 (talk • contribs) .
  • Excuse me! I'm actually the author of the current text, as you will see if you read above. I only became acquainted with this "law" through the AfD, researched it (as above) and concluded that it met wiki criteria. Why don't you check it out yourself on Google. Tyrenius 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me#2 I'm the author of the original entry, yes, but I don't sell anything. The original links I put were a video that was available FOR FREE at Google Video and another website with free-access articles. There has never been anything for sale on the entry and if there ever is, it will have been inserted by somebody else, not me. What I actually suspect is that somebody who is trying to sell something is gathering people to attack the entry. The Law of Attraction is a widespread concept and it simply doesn't make sense Wikipedia does not have an entry for that.AwenStormFool
  • Comment. I think Tyrenius's latest version is a keeper, so I changed my vote above accordingly. Crum375 14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom based his decision on the old version. The new version has been redone from scratch, and was enough to change my vote from Delete to Keep. I think that if you vote at this stage, you need to explain your reasons better. Thanks, Crum375 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel it is mumbo-jumbo, and the new version isn't enough to change my mind. Wikibout-Talk to me! 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be saying that you think the Law of Attraction is mumbo-jumbo. That is not a reason in itself to delete the article. Please read the earlier arguments on this page. Tyrenius 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I was pushing my own POV. I'll stop myself. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so honest and reconsidering. Tyrenius 20:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article looks good now. --Coredesat talk 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has soem sources to show the term has some use and does a good job explaining what it is in an NPoVway. Ace of Sevens 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: expand heavily. I'd like to see how I. Regardie mentions this law. Zos 06:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to his earlier works, it appears that this article is misleading. By lumping all of these authors into a group based solely upon the moniker, their individual opinions on the matter, specifically whether "like attracts like" or "like repels like" has become ambiguous by this article. Ste4k 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could indicate this appropriately in the article. Tyrenius 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bizarre but seemingly well-covered, and article is sourced now. Nice job. Grandmasterka 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The subject of the article is an important kind of philosophy, new age or not, that will only spread with time.--Bennyb 11:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is this user's only edit. Crum375 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; while I consider pseudoscience distasteful, this seems to be a genuine phenomenon. --Guinnog 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Charmed Ones deaths[edit]

This page is almost the definition of Listcruft. In addition to creating this article, the same user added this information to the page of each character and to the main Charmed article. It is better placed on the characters' pages, rather than on a page of its own. There was a brief discussion on the article's talk page, where the three users participating agreed that there was no point to having the list. A note was also left on the creator's talk page, with no response. —Mira 00:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A little too crufty. I don't watch the show, and I can't begin to speculate as to the importance of this article, but it seems to me that its not significant enough. AdamBiswanger1 01:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with main article. If the series is worth having an article on, and the characters' deaths are a significant theme, then this will be of interest to those reading about it.Tyrenius 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge. There is simply no reason for this article to exist, when each item can easily be included in individual episode pages and everything combined into a line or two on the main article. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to redirect/merge/keep since the article's info is already mentioned on the character's places as well as the main Charmed article--TBCTaLk?!? 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, redundant to main article and character articles. --Coredesat talk 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with one of the existing articles. I suppose each character's death could be entered on that character's page, and illiminate this fancruft page.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too crufty. MichaelBillington 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Charmed episodes. Every episode is detailed in this article, with space for gruesome deaths to be slotted in. --DaveG12345 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge Merge useful elements into Charmed and individual characters, and episodes where appropriate. No need for a separate list. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscrimate collection of information. This is yet another example of ab article which relies on an editor thinking up some arbitrary criteria, and then watching every episode of their favourite TV show with a pen and paper. Wikipedia is not a fan site for Charmed and it does not collect trivia like this. - Motor (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a> binthemix.talk_ 10:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Charmed article as necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 11:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prod (or Delete since I guess it's too late for that now). When everybody is in agreement and the creator has disappeared, a Prod would've probably done it though. ;-) This information is fine within each character page (where it is now) but we don't need it all duplicated to a common page as well. --Maelwys 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed WP:NOT --WinHunter (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge relevant part into main page -- One of Charmed's unique characteristics is this recurring theme of the main characters dying several times during the series. However, this is worth mentioning in not more then a paragraph. A list about the exact episodes where the characters died is extremely unnecessary, if someone is that interested they can look it up on a fansite. AdamDobay 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Said relevant info incorporated into main article. AdamDobay 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a collection of indescriminate information. No predjudice against a merge to Charmed if any interested parties wish to do so.--Isotope23 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. Wrath of Roth 18:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this kind of bizarre minutae belongs at the personal website of the devoted fan who took the trouble to compile it, not a general purpose encyclopedia. ---CH 04:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Charmed, but cut the descriptions of deaths. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge A mention can be made on the Charmed page, but not notable enough for its own page. If people want this kind of information, perhaps a page could be made noting the "multiple killings-off" in various shows - but a list dedicated to just this show is not a Wikipedia article. --Tim4christ17 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!Zythe 01:44, 29 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. Without verification, the "57,000" claim may as well be 57. This article suffers from total verifiability failure. The top result of a Google search for '"helena jaworska" -wikipedia' is a genealogy website. '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena jaworska', a search for what was supposedly her one 'hit', turns up nothing, the less specific '"Tę Jedną Noc" helena' turns up 6 unique non-Wiki hits, none of which appear to be talking about a song (note that Helena is supposedly the name of the album). Arguments to keep based on those claims to notability consequently carry little weight.

If references are found, there is no prejudice against the article being recreated with verified information. I will of course restore the content on request if that happens. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Jaworska[edit]

Considered nominating as Speedy per A7, but there is (barely) enough in the article to suggest there might be some degree of importance or significance. However, this person was a one-hit wonder who sold 57,000 copies of her first album, which was released in 1990. The follow-up only sold 9,000. I'd say delete, but think it should be opened up for discussion. Agent 86 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, according to your own description she meets WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia isn't only for extremely popular musicians. Two albums selling several thousand copies a piece is more than many groups can claim, and we have verifiable data about her, so there's no real reason to delete. The musicians that we delete are the bands that practice out of someone's garage and have no information out there about them, making articles about them unverifiable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up: I know WP:MUSIC is out there, but it's not policy, and I couldn't verify any of the criteria that are on that guideline. (My bad - I did fail to mention I could not verify any of the information in this article. Maybe someone who speaks Polish can). Agent 86 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom—she had a hit, and this makes her notable. Tyrenius 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Per later discussion—if it can't be verified, it should be deleted. If it can be verified, then keep. Tyrenius 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one-hit wonders are notable and do meet WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk 02:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Meets WP:MUSIC and is a one-hit wonder as well. However, the absence of any verification is a concern to me. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per User:Siva1979. Pascal.Tesson 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have real problems in verifying this. A Google search comes up with nothing to verify this article. [2]. I would suggest keeping the article if we could verify it. At the moment, I can't. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might be because she is from Poland and not from an English-speaking country (seeing as the Internet [what I assume is your mode of verification] is predominantly English). —EdGl 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not on grounds of notability (if the statements made are true, she's easily notable enough), but on grounds of unverifiability. Can anyone provide a (printed or digital, Polish or English or anything else) source for these claimed sales figures?  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for no reason to delete. MichaelBillington 07:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it isn't verified, which means it breaks policy... which is a good reason to nominate this for deletion.--Isotope23 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC; she's notable. Verifiability may be difficult, but it's not impossible. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unverifiable Fram 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I agree that one hit wonders meet WP:MUSIC, but doesn't it seem strange that there is no Helena Jaworska page on the Polish Wikipedia?[3] --Nscheffey(T/C) 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. If someone can find a source for the "one-hit wonder" claim I am willing to change to keep per WP:MUSIC. Without sourcing this should be removed.--Isotope23 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR due to WP:VER. Ste4k 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NScheffey and lack of verification. Universitytruth 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per User:Siva1979. The creator of the article appears to have made a few contributions on Polish pop groups. I think he or she could easily verify it, but unfortunately he or she has been AWOL from Wikipedia since January. Perhaps we can get some assistance from other Polish Wikipedians? BrownHornet21 00:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep notable, but not very. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:18, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Geller (composer)[edit]

Non-notable unsigned musician. Not to be confused with Bruce Geller of Mission:Impossible fame, who is also a composer. -- Longhair 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Musician's vanity bio. Hard to verify since Bruce Geller (the guy who created Mission:Impossible) was also a composer, complicating Google searches. At most 82 Ghits for "'Bruce Geller' keyboards". --Calton | Talk 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I smell vanity. Somebody open the window AdamBiswanger1 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The assertion of notability needs to be checked out: "he's already released two albums, has garnered over 200,000 airplays on international FM and web-based radio stations." Kindly remember courtesy, as per Jimmy Wales' comments on [4] and [5]. Insults are not required. This person would seem at the very least to be a professional practising musician. Tyrenius 01:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless somebody can find some good search terms and verify notability. MichaelBillington 07:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton's comment Hbdragon88 07:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk 08:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity and fails WP:MUSIC. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Vanity and not notable - if it were only to assert more notability it could stay, but alas. Benjaminstewart05:-) 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads as pure vanity piece. --Charlesknight 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should be rewritten, if kept. Also: two albums (as per text) or four albums (as per misleading links)? Universitytruth 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article will self-destruct in ten seconds. Delete. Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 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 Redirect to canon (fiction) Computerjoe's talk 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-canon[edit]

Pardon the lengthy nom If you just take a cursory look at the page, it may seem full enough to warrant it's own article. The fact is though, that "Non-canon" is merely a word that has no inherent encyclopedic value. This article is a dicdef--when I found it, the article claimed that "non-canon" is a term used only for anime, but I knew this wasn't true so I attempted to add some information about Biblical non-canon texts, and, reluctantly, Star Wars. But then I realized that I am merely adding examples to a dicdef. The section about anime and manga is merely an explanation about how some stories or comics are "non-canon". It's as if I edited the article for green and added a section about how grass and dollar bills are green. This makes no sense, becasue that information belongs in their respective articles (Grass and dollar). Correspondingly, the anime information belongs in the Anime article. (Or perhaps Dragonball Z.) Articles about words (as opposed to Proper nouns) should explain the definition, nature, and intricacies of the word, and not its existence or occurence in outside phenomena. AdamBiswanger1 01:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-keep Dict def of a negative? Doubleunplusgood. Kotepho 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this related to the medical condition of Pachelbelism, the tendency to excessive canonicalisation? Just zis Guy you know? 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Scar runescape[edit]

Largely nonsense article about a possibly existent program complete with "shoutouts". -- Omicronpersei8 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is nonsense, the program exists and is working. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.215.213 (talk • contribs) .
Then where's the link to it? -- Omicronpersei8 16:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of this page and in section one on the actual page. --TF0RCE 14:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Please do not delete this. SCAR is a known program by many on how to create macro scripts. Ways to make life easier without clicking and/or typing. This isn't nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RonTheCon (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete SCAR is an active color clicker and there are 2 main communitys for it, each a community not a hellhole of flame/spam. The page discribes some of the main events of runescape cheating very well, and not one bit of it is nonsence at time of writing. Want to know what is nonsence? Some resons to delete it posted here. If you don't like SCAR/Cheaters in runescape, trying to delete the wiki page dosen't even come close to damage to our communitys. - The UnNamed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.215.213 (talk • contribs) .
  • Don't Delete I did a massive overhaul of this page. I removed links to the lemonparty shock site, fixed the POV issues, and changed many other things. EDIT: THE LINK TO DOWNLOAD IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. Compare the most recent versions at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scar_runescape&diff=60926496&oldid=60857889. Details can be verified at http://www.dylock.net/ and at http://www.moparisthebest.com/smf/ --TF0RCE 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Phileas 02:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too bad there isn't a general speedy criterion for pointless crap. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did it take this long just to turn up a download link for it? Why was it not included in the first few revisions of the article? Is it supposed to be a big secret? -- Omicronpersei8 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Ixfd64 00:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - non-notable, Google gives only 42 hits [6]. ikh (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Actually does appear to be borderline notable, as there seems to be quite a bit of activity going on there just looking at the Google results [7]. The problem is however, that all those links lead to either fan websites, forums, or project pages, and not to "reputable sources" (i.e. news websites, places like GameSpot, etc) as required by Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the editors of the article can come up with a few links to reputable sources, I will change my vote. ikh (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete SCAR is a very handy program used by many to make repetive tasks easier. It is also an excelent teaching tool for teaching young people pascal programing as they can use their programs to interact with an online game. (please note: I just registared this name here but a ip seach will show that I have been a member here prior to this article coming into question)--Flyboy 12345 08:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is Flyboy 12345's first edit; given the number of IPs editing this too, there may be sock/meatpuppetry present. ikh (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We raised a support group to keep this page up on our website, so what do you expect? The users are adding to the article. --TF0RCE 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If by "adding to" you mean "putting in more 'shout-outs'" [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. And that incomplete list, to my best effort, is all unique IPs. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft. And anyway, it's shite compared to AutoRune. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if it exists, its nn Computerjoe's talk 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable cheat program, many unreferenced and unverifiable claims. May want to change the Delphi wikilink not to point to the greek city. Kuru talk 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, woefully unverifiable. Yamaguchi先生 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Shit on a stick. Handface 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - SCAR is very real and I am a very experienced scripter for it. SCAR is used by thousands. - Bego
  • Dammit, the program is HERE: [20] Available in installer, zip, and rar.--TF0RCE 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)(talk • contribs) .[reply]
  • Delete or weak merge to RuneScape this program is only notable in that community. --Pboyd04 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation - This will likely be re-created by numerous users, particularly the ones that have discussed in this AfD and their multiple accounts. Iolakana|T 18:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far, it has been proven that a few people use this program, but I'm not so sure it qualifies as notable, as it seems to be tied to a mostly underground community. The main problems with the article center not around its fame, but around its poor presentation (which TF0RCE, to his credit, has done a good job trying to fix) and its shameless namedropping of online monikers.
    I think it would be possible to salvage it in some way, but it would take a lot of work, starting with changing the title to something that doesn't look like it was typed furiously by an impatient ADD child. It should probably just be merged into a more appropriate, comprehensive Runescape article. And when I say "merge", I mean strip out the bare essentials and incorporate them quietly and humbly into the new location. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. OSU80 00:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ixfd64 08:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move.com[edit]

Reads like advertising, and tags indicating such have been removed several times now. I'm not sure it's of enough substance, considering WP:WEB or WP:CORP to be keepable. I leave it to discussion. Tony Fox (speak) 01:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup I found several non-trivial publications on the company (Which is publicly traded (NASDAQ:MOVE). [21][22]It seems to be the world's first comprehensive real-estate search. Whether thats true or just advertising nonsense, I don't know. AdamBiswanger1 01:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and relocate to the void; this is outrageous advertising. --die Baumfabrik 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite and lock. We have to find a way to block the advertisement. Pascal.Tesson 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra note: creator of page Special:Contributions/Frankjohnson999 is a repeat spammer. Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extra extra note: the user has also created and maintained the article Cfares which I just tagged for notability but if someone can check it out, it might also be suitable for AfD. Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. Tony Fox (speak) 04:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. It states (in part) is listed on ranking indices i.e. the Fortune 500 or Forbes 500. Just being on NASDAQ is not enough. Kevin 09:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ad., <200 google results, fails WP:WEB --WinHunter (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, OK. I could be missing something, but in my first comment I have stated that this company passes both WP:WEB and WP:CORP, and no one seems to have addressed this. For one, the company, Move Inc, is traded on NASDAQ (that's a pretty big deal). WP:CORP says "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications". Now mind you that I'll work to fix it up so that it is not so spammy. Now as far as passing WP:WEB, my case isn't as strong, but I have two websites above that mention the site independently. Please address the issues I have raised before simply voting "delete". AdamBiswanger1 11:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The parent company Move is indeed listed on the NASDAQ but that does not suffice for keep especially sice the article is clearly targeted at listing the services offered by the company. See the relevant section on WP:CORP. This is also my reasonning for having the page protected against future spam if the AfD result is to keep. Pascal.Tesson 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Undoubtedly Move, Inc deserves its own article, but for whatever reason it does not have one. The company's primary manifestation is its website, just like Yahoo! and Google. So, I was thinking of this article as a page for Move, inc. In any event, this article isn't terribly important so I'm gonna throw in the towel. AdamBiswanger1 13:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Reread the guidelines. "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices..." Being listed on NASDAQ is not notable, nor is it a "big deal"; thousands of companies are. Being one of the major companies used to calculate the index (the NASDAQ 100) would be. Fan1967 13:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless someone wants to do major editing to the piece. Universitytruth 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adcruft ---CH 05:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't normally like to pile on votes when a concencus is obvious but this article is absoloutely horrible. ViridaeTalk 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being listed in NASDAQ is not enough. Being listed doesn't mean "used to calculate stock market indices" -- that's the NASDAQ-100, which is composed of NASDAQ's larger and more reliable companies. By the way, someone should really finish List of companies listed on NASDAQ.--M@rēino 21:46, 29 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 close, nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 04:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagi[edit]

Recently, someone proposed this article be merged with Survivor: Borneo. This would have been a good suggestion, if there was anything in this article that wasn't already on the Survivor: Borneo page, which is why I'm proposing it for deletion. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Tagi page has been turned into a disambiguation page, I'm withdrawing my nomination. It is now like the Ulong page, which I think is exceptable since it's not just a redirect to one thing, but to other non-Survivor pages as well. TeckWizTalkContribsGuestbook 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to restate my reply from my talk page, every Survivor tribe probably should redirect to their appropriate season's article. Even if you feel the chances are low that a person would search for the tribe instead of the season itself, the benefits of keeping the redirect far outweigh any negatives. See Wikipedia:Redirect. --Nscheffey(T/C) 12:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Nscheffey. --Maxamegalon2000 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I'd go for redirects on all the other Survivor tribes too. Giving them their own articles is fancruft. KleenupKrew 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ive made it into a disambiguation. there are lots of things called Tagi. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:59, 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: all appear to have already been redirected to List of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes, and the numerous arguments here for deletion or merging support that. I feel it should be noted that there are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, let alone binding precedents. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a Night For a Knight[edit]

Nominating this and several other articles:

All of the above are episodes of Scooby-Doo, Where are You!, the durable old 1969-1971 Saturday morning cartoon. While I'm among the group that beleives that no individual episode of any television show (unless it changed history in some significant form or fashion) deserves an encyclopedia article, fanboys obviously beg to differ. However, articles for episodes of Family Guy and The Simpsons ususally have at least some sort of encyclopedic information on production, referecnes, etc. These articles do not do such (they read very much like cut and paste jobs from TV.com or somewhere similar). Although I've loved Scooby-Doo cartoons since I was a baby, there's no way (without serious reaching and/or original research) that anything sufficiently encyclopedic could ever be drummed up for individual articles for the show's episodes. There's nothing to distinguish each episode from another on any artistic or scholarly level, and therefore there is no point in writing seperate articles for them. --FuriousFreddy 01:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Or perhaps some daring could create List of Scooby Doo episodes. AdamBiswanger1 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming they're not copyvios. Notable TV shows should have notable episode articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...not if they're just synopses with no other information. If someone writes something meaningful and encyclopedic (and I'd love to see them try), then we can reevaluate. --FuriousFreddy 01:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with stubs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's something (plenty) wrong with stubs that don't establish individual notablility beyond existence. --FuriousFreddy 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seconded, especially when there are many, like a spilled jar of jelly beans. Let's put them back in the jar. AdamBiswanger1 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Exactly my point. Can you imagine three-hundred and seventy-one articles about Scooby-Doo episodes? They fcould all be written with a template, with next-to-no modifications. And this is coming from someone who's probably seen at least three-hundred of those episodes. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd imagine that notability isn't an issue when it comes to Scooby-Doo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
            • Notability is always an issue in Wikipedia. --FuriousFreddy 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, somewhat unfortunately. To thnk that it's seriously an issue with episodes of Scooby-Doo, however, is somewhat hard to swallow. It's not like we're talking a little-known Showtime series or some incredibly minor actress. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository for episode synopses. If that's the case, I'll quit right now and contribute my writing skills elsewhere. I beleive that Scooby-Doo is, of course, a notable enough show to deserve an encyclopedia article here, but sepearte articles for each episode of this particular show, to be nice about it, absurd. --FuriousFreddy 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Aside from notability, it's always a good idea to merge related, stubby articles. I don't see any reason why these brief synopses warrant independence. AdamBiswanger1 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Expanding the episode guide to include short synopses would eliminate the need for idividual episode articles. --FuriousFreddy 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added "Haunted House Hang-Up" to the list. --FuriousFreddy 01:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Shows should be allowed. Green caterpillar 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no evidence of being a copyvio (yet); episodes are from a notable television show --TBCTaLk?!? 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that a TV show is notable doesn't make every single individual episode notable (or interesting, or useful, or anything but fancruft). Do any of these episodes have any claim to fame beyond the fact that they existed? Opabinia regalis 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, just because a TV show is notable doesn't mean all its episodes are notable. None of these episode articles assert notability, and are simply synopses without context. Seeing as the articles are only a paragraph long each, if someone can prove the episodes are somehow notable, I wouldn't object to merging them to season articles. --Coredesat talk 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Coredesat and Opabinia. —EdGl 03:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into One Article The television show may be notable, but when's the last time you referred to an episode of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! its official title? One article for each list of episodes would suffice. joturner 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Scooby-Doo episodes. If these end up being kept, perhaps User:Mangojuice/scoobydoo episode will be useful. :) Mangojuicetalk 03:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mangojuice. It's funny 'cause it's true.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe there is potential here, as has been said there is nothing wrong with leaving articles in this form if they will be developed. Wait and see I think. SM247 05:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. --Metropolitan90 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree with the nom's sentiments, the fact is that there are many, many shows for which each and every episode is reflected in Wikipedia articles. I recommend that those voting to delete work to change the consensus about that practice. RGTraynor 08:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two wrongs don't make a right! There are probably many articles that warrant deletion, are you suggesting until someone comes up with a full and complete list, NO article should ever be deleted? As to the arguement about a show being notable, hence episodes are notable - where do we stop? Are individual scenes in a notable show notable? As this is an animation, would individual cel be notable? I think not. Delete. Markb 09:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's arguing for such a slippery slope. At the moment, nothing has been provided that these articles don't deserve to exist except that they're short. These aren't game show episodes or daily soaps, they're episodes of a TV in which no new episodes are going to be made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Errr ... may I ask when and where anyone's argued for articles on individual cels? I'm sure we can stick to the AfD at hand for the time being. That being said, I was pretty explicit with what I said in the first place. Wikipedia works by clear consensus, and the clear consensus is that individual episode articles are acceptable. Frankly, I don't see offhand what makes Simpsons eps notable, and SD eps not. RGTraynor 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article. The existence of bad articles is not an excuse for the creation of bad articles. --- GWO
  • Delete All – Each article is simply a one-paragraph plot synopsis with no additional information or encyclopedic value whatsoever. --Satori Son 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into single article. It's not that we should delete because they are short, it's because they have no potential to become real articles. Can anyone honestly imagine A Clue for Scooby Doo being developed to the level of an article like The Contest? I loved Scooby, but the episodes were as similar as Starbucks. Stubs should be little seeds waiting to grow, which these are not. --Nscheffey(T/C) 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it interesting that you pick one of the most famous Seinfeld episodes to make your point. Sure, it won't be "The Contest," but it could be "The Ticket." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I see your point. You're right, the most famous episode of the most famous TV show was a bad example. My problem with scooby is that all the episodes have the same plot, and there are hundreds of them. Other shows' episode pages just seem to provide much more information and potential for expansion. Am I off base here? --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You make a perfectly valid point, certainly. The point, however, is that, yes, right now they're kinda short and arguably crappy, but this isn't some random show that no one knows, it's Scooby Doo, arguably one of the most popular cartoons of its time, if not all time. I'm inclusionist when it comes to television shows, yes, but this isn't, I dunno, Love Monkey. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. While the existing articles are still stubs, merely being a stub is hardly a good reason to delete articles - the subject is encyclopaedic enough. WilyD 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. BJK 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete All {{db-nocontext}} Ste4k 15:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important to note that the articles actually provide context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Important to note that all Scooby Doo,Where Are You! episodes are very similar to each other to the point of generating a kind of brainwashing effect Bwithh 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Scooby Doo, Where Are You! for now, if anyone decides to expand them further they can be separated again. Kirjtc2 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, second choice Delete. The show is notable. However, as many have mentioned above, any descriptions of the episodes not only are, but would have to be, very similar to each other. There is no point in having separate articles that say essentially the same thing. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all; the only thing that splitting information up like this does is make it harder for people to read.
    Some people may think that popular topics somehow "deserve" to have a lot of distinct articles. They don't: what they deserve is high quality articles, of whatever number is needed to provide that quality. Where an article is so long that it becomes awkward to read it, it is an improvement to break it up; when articles are so short that it becomes awkward to navigate them, it is an improvement to merge them. It's not like merging these would even result in any information being lost, let alone any knowledge. So what's the problem? — Haeleth Talk 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all , for the love of God, as per jelly bean in jar argument. Universitytruth 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All or Merge All as above. Bwithh 03:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Haeleth. Doocruft. You could redirect to one article that just says "Plot summary - Mystery Machine/spooky location/scare#1/clue#1/jinkies/scare#2/clue#2/zoinks/"me and Daph will go this way"/running down corridor/comedy double act/only other character in cartoon is revealed as ghost/pesky kids/soda bar/Scoooby Doooby Dooo" --DaveG12345 07:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was bold enough to (re)create List of Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes with plot summaries. Damned if that wasn't the longest game of Mad Libs I've ever played. --FuriousFreddy 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand These are notable and more information should be added to bring them up to par with the Family Guy or Simpsons episodes. --Pboyd04 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, per Haeleth. OSU80 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incest of the Trinity[edit]

Amazon sales rank below 1,900,000; about 5 Ghits for its listings on Amazon and Powell's, then about 700 unrelated porn sites. Nonnotable book. NawlinWiki 01:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crum375 02:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author doesn't get Ghits either. Tyrenius 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-notable book--TBCTaLk?!? 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable book by non-notable author. --Coredesat talk 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Vanity - article's creator is book's author. David L Rattigan 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable book. WilyD 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is for sale on Amazon. Are you defining non-notable as meaning "I personally don't care to read it?" Anytime you whip out the word non-notable then I think you should bother to offer a reason. george 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon has books listed that have sold only a few copies, if that many, so the listing in itself is not a criterion. I believe we like to have about 10,000 copies sold, and for that the Amazon rating would have to be much higher than this book, which is 1.9M. If you look up the correlation charts, you will see that much better Amazon ratings are needed and that 1.9M translates into just a few copies sold. Of course any non-Amazon proof of notability would also be acceptable, but the Amazon rating is a good start. Crum375 00:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WilyD. Valentinian (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the policy on books here? If its listed for sale in Amazon then isn't that good enough? Wikipedia is characteristically vague on this point:
Although not the topic of this guideline, the question has been asked whether every book deserves a separate Wikipedia article. For example, not every book somewhere cited in a references section of a Wikipedia article will necessarily get a separate wikipedia article for itself. Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable. Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify. On the other hand, if a Wikipedia page can only survive if a "(book)" qualifier, not needed for disambiguation, is added to the page name, this might indicate there is a problem with the notability, in Wikipedia context, of that book.

george 22:53, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knovel[edit]

Article is advertising for a non-notable commerical entity J Martin 01:54, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knippenbergh[edit]

WP:NOT Article is genealogical entry J Martin 02:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocker Panel Productions[edit]

non-notable company, doesn't pass WP:CORP, and reads a bit like an advertisement hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't really pass any sort of test. Seems like it violates WP:NOT in promotion. Yanksox (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 13 Google results [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 02:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all spam. MichaelBillington 06:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid company, although not a member of any stock exchange. --Yojimbosdog 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contact if you require proof of journal sources. Also can provide proof of small business checking. --69.218.76.77 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a question of verification of whether it exsists. It just reads like an ad for a small company, which is not within the guidelines that other people have listed above. If you have "journal sources", please provide them on the article or here. Kuru talk 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. If content from one article is moved to another, the first article must be kept as a redirect to the second to preserve attribution in its page history. The page cannot be deleted, in most cases. Therefore, you don't need to bring merges to AfD. If there is disagreement about the merging, work it out on the talk page of one of the articles. -- Kjkolb 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNH Pep Band[edit]

I'm really sorry to the editor who spent alot of time creating these articles, but we just can't have articles for pep bands, jazz bands, student clubs, etc within a university. These pages need to be merged, but I know the pages themselves need to be deleted afterwords, and I'm not sure how that works. So, I also nominate these:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 following the rewrite (most delete arguments do not address it). No articles link to this one, which is usually cause for concern, particularly given the whiff of self-promotion, but given the subject's involvement with noteworthy organisations and people, there should be scope to add some links to this article somewhere. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hannant[edit]

Appears to fail WP:BIO, I don't think there is any notability on a scope like this. This was prod'd and the prod was removed with no explanation. Delete Yanksox (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, likely vanity. -Drdisque 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is some sort of a precocious young activist, plucked out of obscurity by UNICEF for reasons unknown. The article is a UE promotion, anyway, and I have a strong distrust of 17 year old activists. Maybe she'll be notable one day, who knows. Not now and not this article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn and more likely than not, vanity hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is nn and vanity 'speedy'? Crum375 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep. See below. The article sounds like vanity, although there is some proof of notability. Its main problem right now is that it is extremely poorly written, with basically a bunch of quotes slapped together. If it were re-written from scratch as an encyclopedic article, a case could be made for inclusion, but that would require some serious work. Crum375 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like she's a pawn of somebody's public relations campaign. Self-congratulatory PR does not make notability, even if it is UNICEF pulling the strings. Opabinia regalis 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Coredesat talk 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I have cleaned up the article to a far better standard. I thought it was a very interesting subject, and worth keeping. If those who have already voted are happy with the article as it now stands, please consider changing your vote. (Not that this really is a "vote" as such, but we all know that's how these things are usually interpreted!) David L Rattigan 09:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has potential. Using a 'Strong Keep' to push a marginally notable person will not gain you any extra votes here. Quiet and reasoned persuasion works better. I think some of the previous references have dropped out and the ones there are not all functional or do not have her name. My recommendation is to work on adding as many good references as possible to neutral reliable sites, such as news media, UNICEF, etc. that show her name. I will switch my vote to Keep once the refs have been added/fixed up. Crum375 12:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I kept two important references, but made a formatting mistake. Corrected it now, and they are both sources that refer to her by name. David L Rattigan 12:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not comfortable with sufficiently proven notability based on the current references to change my mind. Yes, she was mentioned a couple of times, but so have lots of kids, and it seems in most cases she is mentioned as example of an 'activist kid' in a site or publication of questionable (to me) popularity. Has she done anything remarkable since? She is about 20 years old now - I think it takes more to get notability per WP:BIO criteria. Crum375 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rewrite, but my opinion is the same. Had she received the prize, and not been merely nominated, I might have changed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it - what prize was she nominated for? Crum375 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The World's Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child per the radical rewrite - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She nominated someone else to receive the Prize, but was not nominated herself (which I guess makes her even less notable in your book)! David L Rattigan 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She seems marginally noteworthy. WilyD 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO because she addressed the dignitaries internationally in a covered event.
  • Comment for my keep. This could use some more verifiable sources and coverage of how she got to be the person chosen to make that address. Ste4k 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See this for example. It seems there are lots of 'jury kids' around, new ones being appointed all the time. Are they notable? Crum375 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probable activist vanity article. Barely notable. KleenupKrew 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Article is much better since David L Rattigan's revision. Also Passes WP:BIO per Ste4k. This is stubby, but has potential for development. Also note that discussions on the Rights of the Child are still emerging. This article has long-term reference potential, I believe. Universitytruth 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems like she has a modicum of notability; very few Google hits, but a fair number of them do come from news articles about her rather than random pages. Skybum 01:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been improved significantly. --Coredesat talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article much improved and asserts sufficient notability for me. Inner Earth 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added a new link to the article, and changed my vote above from Delete to Keep. I think the article as it is now is acceptable for both proven notability and style aspects. Crum375 13:42, 30 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 13:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Premier discography[edit]

This article is a list of works that DJ Premier worked on, and the majority of them have their own articles. The notable ones are already linked to on the DJ Premier article, and this article just duplicates information that's in other articles. I'm going to comment Delete, although a Category or list would likely be better than the current article if the decision was to keep. TheJC TalkContributions 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or perhaps redirect, no need to merge/keep since the info is already mentioned on the DJ Premier article--TBCTaLk?!? 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to DJ Premier article. Not sure this would be a common search term. --Coredesat talk 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep while I agree that the best way to go is not necessarily to keep this page, Premier is actually an important player in rap history. Creation of a category might be best option. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3. Ste4k 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that listcruft doesn't fall under CSD A3--TBCTaLk?!? 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant listcruft. KleenupKrew 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Pascal. hateless 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • interesting. when i - owner of gang starr trackology http://gangstarr-ga-ohost-de/ (replace the dashes with dots - sorry cant link it as your genius admin friends banned the entire *.ohost.de domain for no reason) - asked for a deletion of this article that was started by a simple copy & paste of content from my site, you guys simply opted NOT to delete it. without giving me a proper reason, and whats more, totally ignoring me. but now when some mr super important admin requests... ok im getting it slowly. double standard. if you guys go on like that you will soon go under. my 2 cents. 80.134.152.227 23:43, 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 speedy delete by Fang Aili. --Coredesat talk 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number 2 show![edit]

Fails WP:WEB; not-notable. I PRODed but PROD removed by author without comment. BlueValour 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - even worse; I think only 2 of those hits relate to this show. BlueValour 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by creator) There are so many other podcast descriptions on Wikipedia why is this one being deleted? I mean just look at the 'podcast' category and you will see a ton there. I don't see why this entry should be discriminated against based on it's age or listener base.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ootoowak (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 Jun 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No discrimination; as we find 'em we assess 'em. BlueValour 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict) The other podcast articles that don't satisfy WP:WEB will likely be nominated in the future when someone sees them. TheJC TalkContributions 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article does not establish notability. TheJC TalkContributions 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability asserted. Fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Coredesat. —EdGl 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable podcast. Justifying existence on the basis of other podcasts is not itself an argument for retention. WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article makes no claim to notability for this podcast. --Metropolitan90 06:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No apparent notability - my only regret is that I have but one vote for deletion. WilyD 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or userfy if requested by creator. May be re-created without prejudice in the future when it becomes notable. (I must say that "Not setting the bar too high the couple fumbles their way through webpages and sound quality all the while just enjoying each others company and conversation" suggests to me that producing the podcast is probably more enjoyable than listening to it). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC) P. S. User:Ootoowak, be aware you have a "user page" on Wikipedia—which you are currently not using You can use your user page for anything you like within fairly broad limits; in particular, unlike articles, you can use user pages for personal self-expression. Material about your podcast is perfectly suitable for your user page. Just go to User:Ootoowak and click "edit this page," just like any other. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - tagged as such - creator has blanked all content. BlueValour 20:28, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Finals runner-ups[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - copyvio of [27]. A redirect to Survival kit would be helpful as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survival food[edit]

Appears to fail WP:OR. Wrongfully listed as Speedy Delete. DarkAudit 02:35, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Krueger[edit]

Contested PROD. Last player selected in NHL draft, not notable under WP:BIO. Possible vanity page. If he makes the NHL or high-level minors the page can be recreated, but for now he fails (and the last player selected almost never makes it that far). BoojiBoy 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete, pretty much pointless, I agree, but a weeny little bit more notable than the player picked right before him. Pascal.Tesson 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agreed; the last player in the NHL draft has remote odds at best of ever making the NHL. RGTraynor 08:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - for the record, since 1969 only one last overall selection (Kim Jonsson) has become an NHL regular. BoojiBoy 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Coredesat. Ste4k 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless he ever makes it to the big leagues), but it's interesting (to me, at least) to note that over in the NFL, the last player drafted becomes known as "Mr. Irrelevant" and has a parade thrown for him. I don't think the NHL has anything like that. Kirjtc2 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree; if it were me, I sure as hell wouldn't want my resume to read "very last person to be picked in the 2006 NHL Entry Draft." ♠ SG →Talk 15:35, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace Comms Network[edit]

Notability in question (The community currently welcomes 440 members) --NMChico24 02:51, 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. Mo0[talk] 00:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BioPsychoSpiritual[edit]

This reads more like a bio on Frank John Ninivaggi. Even still, this doesn't seem like a notable enough topic. —EdGl 03:03, 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinkStation[edit]

Blatent Advertising David Humphreys 03:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not meet notability criteria of WP:WEB. Looks more like an advert. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article was just changed to look more standard, but now there are 0 claims of notablity. Neither version seems to qualify. Kevin_b_er 03:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yes, a severe clean-up has been done but I would think you would be hard pushed to expand it !!!! Agree with Kevin_b_er David Humphreys 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article makes no claims to notability for the product.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable product. --Coredesat talk 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tried to make it somewhat more expanded, but it's difficult to not have it end up looking at least a bit like an advert. The NAS section of the Wikipedia does not list many examples of NAS devices, and there are currently many, I think taken together they would represent a very notable subject -- Ramuka 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this device has a significant set of open source software communities behind it developing software for it and is particularly of interest to those interested in embedded linux. I request that the moderator considers the kurobox and linkstation wiki communities listed in the article and its popularity as a novelty piece of hardware (Wikipedia is full of noteable articles on interesting computing devices) before deciding the course of action.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.49.94 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment as of now the above anon IP has only one edit.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that this product is very notable, as it is one of the few network-attached-storage devices available on the retail market that can easily be hacked into a very versatile Linux appliance. These are sold at practically every Best Buy and Comp USA in the country, making it probably the only such device with these characteristics available at retail, and its small size and inconspicuousness make it a very attractive platform for this. Buffalo doesn't even advertise this fact in their packaging when they sell these - in fact it almost seems like they do their best to conceal it to the average customer, and it requires intermediate Linux expertise to hack, so I strongly doubt that they are using this site to garner a few more sales. Please don't remove the Linkstation, as there are thousands of things on Wikipedia less notable than it. Reswobslc 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have pretty much re-done the page, removing all of the information that is otherwise worthless to the person asking "what's a Linkstation" and describing Linkstation to the average browser. In its new state I feel it's probably worthy of keeping. Reswobslc 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a few hardware specs snippits back in at the top (sorry) that I thought would be of general interest. And the Kanji for Kuro-Box (it took me forever to index the two characters :-). But you're right probably too technical before for the average joe. Ramuka 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework and expand. Advert wording can be fixed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Linkstation Hacking Communities in Japan & US & Europe growing similarly to Linksys NSLU2 NAS device. Consider this Article to be similar to the one for NSLU2. --Flavoie 20:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as of now the above user has only one edit.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC
  • Delete per WP:ADS, non-notable product--TBCTaLk?!? 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If a page like this were WP:ADS wouldn't it be advocating something other than how easy it is to misuse the product to get it to do something it wasn't made to do in the first place? I mean geez, how notable does it need to be? CNET thought it was notable enough to review it, as did ZDNET, not to mention LinuxDevices and PC Magazine. How about the Linkstation General Yahoo group with 2,799 members? If this isn't notable, then perhaps maybe neither is the Playstation. Reswobslc 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It was me that started all this !!! The article was reported here, because the original was "Blatant advertising" It has changed completely since its creation (it does seem to contain far too many Japanese language links - why are they on English Wikipedia ????) The argument has now changed to "Notability" as apposed to "Advertising", so maybe the delete should be a "No" . Then if anyone wants to report it as un-noteworthy, then so be it !!! David Humphreys 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The reason for the Japanese links is the nature of the device (I happened to have bought mine in Japan) the hacking community for it is much MUCH more developed in japan. Many of our pages are direct translations of the Japanese efforts. In the same fashion that english papers on Organic and other chemistry cite german papers from prior to 1950's we cite the Japanese sites because of the sheer depth of thier community. By the way, thanks... I worked hard not to make it look like an Advertisement. Raumka 02:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well worked and wikified article on a device that serves as an example of NAS Hardware - needs to be linked FROM there if it survives AfD. Ace of Risk 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge with Kuro Box. It's notable as an example of a PowerPC mainboard. — A.M. 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Kuro Box (I agree) I think an entry for all three Kurobox Linkstation and Terastation in one place would make sense and be informative. I'll try to add it all into the LinkStation entry.. then maybe there can be redirects from Kuro Box after the controversy is over Raumka 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Kuro Box Ok essentially that's now done (I think it makes alot of sense), maybe a little cleanup remains, I had a previous version like this but it got chopped down, lets see how this fares. If the decision is made to merge/keep this we can take care of redirects later Raumka 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ADS, nn product. --WinHunter (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stairwell: Trapped In The World Trade Center[edit]

Somewhat reluctant afd. I first came across the article when links to it were being spammed across any and all 9/11 film articles. It asserts notability for the film, but I can't find much about it. The IMDB article doesn't even list a running time, and it only appears to have been exhibited once. Only six users on IMDB have rated it, and there's only one imdb user comment that appears to be from a shill. There are only 209 hits on a Google search. Many contributions to the article have been self-promotional in nature, and there has been resistance when I attempted to get contributors to back up their claims with references. Note also that an article on the production company, was deleted in October: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parivision Entertainment -- MisterHand 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's guidelines for movies and films as there are for music. But if I try to translate the music guidelines to films, this doesn't make it. -- Mikeblas 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Coredesat talk 08:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mikeblas. Tychocat 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly for the sake of caution. I did find another reference (in Danish) to this film as being the first film about the WTC attack. [28] My Danish ain't great, but this does provide further documentation to support the claims made in the article, so this controverts the self-promotion concern. More research should be done, but let's not prematurely delete what seems to be the FIRST FILM ABOUT THE WTC ATTACK. Some historical events make amateur artistic productions noteworthy. Universitytruth 22:23, 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 speedy delete per CSD G7, no other significant contributions - Tangotango 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter (Drake and Josh episode)[edit]

This page is simply pointless and to short an article. ForestH2 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only content is "Helicopter is a Drake & Josh episode from Season 4. There is a helicopter." Laughing out loud... —EdGl 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I usually vote to keep episode-related articles, but this is hardly an article. In fact, there are only two lines, one of which states that "There is a helicopter" and the other that states that this is a Drake and Josh episode, which anyone can obviously tell simply from looking at the article's name.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an empty article, unless the author or other interested editor expands the stub.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite this being my new favourite entry on Wikipedia. "There is a helicopter." Genius. Phileas 06:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination ... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the nominator create the article? --Metropolitan90 06:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ForestH2's contributions says yes, so {{db-author}} would be in order.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:38, 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 speedeleted. JDoorjam Talk 05:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Ensemble[edit]

Doesn't seem quite notable. The text in the article is almost directly listed from their website. Not much given on the website for clear notability. Finally, Google didn't turn up much and the group site's Alexa rating is low (3 millions). Crystallina 03:27, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The All That Oath[edit]

Fancruft. Don't even think it's a part of the show, or worth merging. Wikipedical 03:35, 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 speedy deleted due to massive delete calls. Kimchi.sg 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi height[edit]

Blatant advertising, and very nearly patent nonsense. I wish this were a speedy candidate. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:39, 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 speedy delete - this one won't ever survive either. Kimchi.sg 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko height[edit]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimi height. —EdGl 03:47, 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 no consensus.

Talia Rubel[edit]

Previous PROD'd by Calton as "Non-notable actress -- Off-off-Broadway and one shot-on-video no-budget picture" - Concur with that assessment. Delete MikeWazowski 03:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO, only 904 Google results [32]. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 08:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Haikupoet 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no idea why this is deemed non-notable. The google search means nothing - only a cultural preponderance towards certain topics, or topics of interest to the computer literate etc. Given that this encyclopedia has endless articles on fictional characters from American TV and sci-fi - it seems ridiculous that an article about an actress who has starred in a multi-award winning movie should be deleted. Talia Rubel is included in all the main movie list sites including the New York Times.--Zleitzen 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep Starring in a notable film conveys presumptive notability (though I's like to see some references). If Red Cockroaches is notable (and it looks like it probably is) then she is also, IMO. Eluchil404 18:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mic(ism)[edit]

  • Not notable as it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nearly nonsense, so it will be hard to clean up. No notable people involved. Really just corporate. Mikeblas 03:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 783 Google results [33]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. Not so sure about WP:NPOV, but that'd just be another nail in the coffin. --Coredesat talk 08:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Doesn't meet guidelines. JPD (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May not meet WP:CORP, but is hardly nonsense. People involved may not be notable to the general public, but are well known and respected by those involved in beatbox and hip hop culture: article about mic(ism) featured in Scandinavian hip hop magazine, Kingsize. When composing our Wiki article we researched other Wiki articles about small clothing labels and kept in line with those. They haven't been targeted for deletion. Furthermore, the IBA section of the article is not corporate. Added by Mic(ism) at 1:53, June 27, 2006.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Argument of "systemic bias" is strong and valid. --Ezeu 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clase Z "Tropical"[edit]

While the article makes some claim to notability, a Google search on the title brings up 245 hits, with only 70 unique. No verifiable evidence of claimed awards or televison screenings found. Very likely a vanity article, as article author has only made edits promoting this filmmaker. Delete MikeWazowski 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, non-notable film. Possibly merge to Miguel Coyula, though the Miguel Coyula article might be not notable as well.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable film. --Coredesat talk 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, into Miguel Coyula article. No need to delete the Coyula article, though the info on this short film belongs there and does not merit a separate page. SmartGuy 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a Cuban film scholar and have written several essays about Cuban Filmmakers. In Cuba, Television Screenings as well as many Film Festivals awards are not listed in the internet, as internet access is quite limited. However if the English section of Wikipedia only considers relevant or notable films that have had been notable in North America as opposed to any other country in the world, please inform me so I will certainly delete the Clase Z "Tropical" article. I'm merely transplanting information and translating it into english from the ICAIC website (Cuban Institute of Art and Film Industry) where you can see (in spanish) the filmography and awards for this particular director (see link below)[34] User:Thaman81 10:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Miguel Coyula article. This is the English speaking wikipedia, not the Anglo-culture only wikipedia.--Zleitzen 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Catamorphism 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film is notable in Cuba. See article notable films of 2000 at the New Filmmakers Film Festival (in spanish) http://www.cubacine.cu/muestrajoven/muestra1.htm Thaman81 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia needs more articles like this, not fewer, to counteract the Wikipedia problem with Systemic bias. BruceHallman 16:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Miguel Coyula article.MichaelW 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Janis[edit]

After having done some minor edits to improve the article's quality a little bit. I've come to the conclusion that this article is a thinly veiled advertisement. Even though subject is an author, I am not convinced that they are notable enough to warrant inclusion. Plus the only link provided is a link to a commercial site.Delete Based on comments from a fellow editor, in the interests of fairness, I have decided to strike the original language I used for my nomination. It was non neutral and somewhat biased. Though my vote is still to delete, as I agree with most of the comments from the other participants. I apologize if my language was in any way abusive, malicious and/or disrespectful, as I happen to admire the Wikipedia philosophy of treating every editor with respect.TheRingess 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She's an Emmy award winner and she has a decent number of Google results for her name. That's good enough for me. joturner 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoturnerDelete per below. I should have double-checked first...--TBCTaLk?!? 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TBC. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up. The subject is notable, but the article is in horrible shape, and needs to be brought within the bounds of WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk 08:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is not, in fact, an "Emmy winner." The local newscast for which she was a film editor was nominated for a local Emmy (there are twenty-someodd regional "Emmy" chapters). Her IMDB credits are all in film editing, not in line editing. RGTraynor 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per RGTraynor. Fails WP:NPOV, article isn't truthful. It sure fooled me before I double-checked. --Coredesat talk 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Her claim to fame appears to be the books she's written. But I can't find any independent (non-Amazon Customer) reviews of any of them. Until I see some I say delete. --Nscheffey(T/C) 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity and/or advertising page. Article does not assert anything that meets WP:BIO. Per RGTraynor the Emmy claim appears to be false and the IMdB credits are not inspiring --Peripitus (Talk) 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGTraynor. -- Kicking222 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear notable KleenupKrew 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Award information is on her company's video page. Has photo of awards -- Emmy, New York International Television Festival, National Associated Press Board of Directors, Los Angeles Press Club, and others. Book reviews from Publishers Weekly and others are on this page and on this page. Her website is not commercial, but an extensive website of free multimedia spiritual resources that has been awarded cool site of the day -- I've read her book Spirituality For Dummies. jaime234 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the website does have free things, it is still a commercial website. The comments made by other editors about the emmy award are still true. To me, the article is still vanity and self promotion.TheRingess 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently TheRingess has also gone into other groups such as Siddha Yoga, a spiritual organization that both TheRingess and this author/filmmaker are members of -- trying to remove and alter an entry for this woman's webpage there. Seems that TheRingess has some kind of personal vendetta against the person. Photo of the woman winning her emmy and holding it on this page Just to be clear, I don't have an opinion as to whether this person should be included in wikipedia, but personal vendettas or issues should not be the deciding factor. jaime234 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well there's not much I can say to your accusations, except they aren't true, but that's besides the point. Thank goodness, the status of the article will be determined through well reasoned discussion based on the principles of Wikipedia. And thankfully every editor's opinion and insights are respected. This discussion is a very good example of how the nomination process works on Wikipedia. As you can see, everyone has an equal say. Remember this is not a vote of any kind just a discussion of the merits of the article. Which I'd like to add, has basically only a single source, and many details that are practically impossible to easily verify, which goes against wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability. I don't think you read my comments, I did not insult the subject of this article at all. Also, comments about "sour cereal" and "asanas" are best left on users talk pages, since many particpants in this discussion will have no idea what those terms might mean. Ditto for mailing lists that would have no appeal to fellow Wikipedia editors. Please leave any personal comments of that nature only on my talk page.TheRingess 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TheRingess, I did post this message on your talk page, and you deleted it. Although you didn’t delete some of the other entries accusing you of acting in bad faith, which I would also echo. You have arrogantly declared this article to be vanity and self promotion – do you think that headshaker from the UK who started this article is the author trying to promote herself? Ridiculous. He is probably someone who appreciated this author’s work, as I also am. This page is just a normal biography of a fairly accomplished and interesting filmmaker and author, with the information probably based on the author’s memoir and website. Again, if it is not in line with Wikipedia, fine, delete it, but there is no need for you to do so with such disrespect and maliciousness.Jaime234 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


To TheRingess: Thanks for the welcome and signature info. I've been looking through wikipedia over the last couple weeks, and noticed your comments on the Siddha Yoga page, also remember you writing on the SGMKJ newslist, so know that you are or have been a devotee, as I've been. I disagreed with some of your changes on the Siddha Yoga page, and saw that you went after a link to the website of Sharon (Kumuda) Janis, also a devotee, on that page, which led to a free reading of her book about living in the South Fallsburg ashram for ten years. Although I've never met Sharon, I've read her books and spent hours upon hours going through her massive webpage of chanting, videos, writings, photos, etc. Looked up Sharon's page on wikipedia and saw that you are adamently sponsoring a movement to remove her page, while making unnecessary and untrue insults about her career history and her website, obviously with a flavor of venom. That is when I decided to step in and point out your obvious bias toward this person -- maybe she stepped on your asana or something? Took the last bowl of sour cereal? I don't know much about how to use wikipedia talk, so may not be using it perfectly properly, but I don't think you are using it properly either. Jaime234 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have gone ahead and edited this article. My basic intent was to make it more encyclopedic in tone. I removed material that I thought might be very difficult to verify. Basically I believe that she is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I think that the emmy information might be possible to reinstate if the category and date information is supplied. Personally, I just think that the article needs a lot more specific details. I also chose to delete the information about here ashram background as that is basically very hard to verify without contacting the ashram. My vote now is Keep.TheRingess 01:33, 30 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. Avi 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil Responsibilities Union[edit]

Severely non-notable group, self-styled as "ACLU alternative" with one relevant google hit AFAICT [35] (to its homepage). Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ORG; as mentioned by nom, few google results [36]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per TBC.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not yin and yang - it does not need an opposing article for every article, especially if the opposite is non-notable. Too many anti-neologisms and non-notable nemesis or counter-organisations have been appearing recently. SM247 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 08:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a hoax. 99 Google hits when you search by the full name at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22American+Civil+Responsibilities+Union%22&btnG=Search , and one of the hits is a message[37] from 1996, so the group has been around a long time. Even so, while the group is real, I'm not sure that it's notable, especially since I didn't see any figures for the number of members or its annual budget. --TruthbringerToronto 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I do see anyone in this discussion who clamed that this was a hoax.70.48.110.85 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonnotable, promo KleenupKrew 20:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got 96 Ghits, probably not all distinct (e.g. closer examination will probably show some are off-site copies of the article under discussion!). That doesn't seem very notable, given how easily someone can generate Ghits by using a sock/shill to post comments to blogs, etc. ---CH 05:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stubs are cheap, at least as far as 99 google hits goes. Joeyramoney 02:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability, and possibly merge info into the ACLU article, under "Conservative critics." Penelope D 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperstrong Keep. This group is noted in AZ and CA for being against illegal immigration. I have seen the sign facing CA, saying:"Welcome to California, home of illegal aliens.", and on the other side, facing AZ,"You are leaving California, home of illegal aliens.", the only contact info given was www.acru.com. The are opposed to the ACLU on many issues and matters. Martial Law 22:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This billboard was located at Quartzite, AZ. Martial Law 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please provide a reason why it should be kept. A billboard is not evidence of notability. Ladlergo 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Non-notable. Atlant 22:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (WP:ORG). Ladlergo 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Enochlau. --Coredesat talk 06:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyard (band)[edit]

It's like a disambiguation page except not. Borderline, kinda-sorta assertion of notability, but very weak. —EdGl 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot to vote...delete. Speedy Delete per db-author (article's author voted delete). —EdGl 04:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment, you don't actually need to vote since this is technically not a vote and because the act of nominating an article for deletion is already a statement of position on the matter. But continue to restate your position if you feel. joturner 04:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but sometimes the nominator's vote is keep. I have in fact seen this; it usually happens when they disagree with a prod tag on the page or notice that a prod tag has been taken down. Also, you don't know whether my delete "vote" was strong, weak, or neither, of if I had no vote at all (seen this happen too). Some just put articles on here just for consensus, having no opinion on the article's fate. —EdGl 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: It also gives me the option of changing my vote, which is actually what I did (see above). 16:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Split The article is poorly written and indeed it talks about more than one band, but I don't believe that's reason for deletion. A split is necessary although I'm sure at least one band with the name Boneyard is not notable enough to have its own article. joturner 04:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete Now that its only editor wants the article to be deleted, per EdGl, it falls under {{db-author}}. joturner 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the three are notable. In fact, the only somewhat notable band that goes by the name of Boneyard is a 90's rap group that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the nominated article [38]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heh. I started the article, but upon further review, I don't think that there's enough info out there to make it more than a stub. Two out of the three groups with this name meet one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC (namely, the band contains at least one member who later joined a band that is otherwise notable), but I don't think that's going to be enough to sustain an article. I've merged some of the info on the L.A. glam band to help expand the article for its singer Chris Van Dahl. Perhaps the Gail Greenwood info could be merged into the Belly article. Alternatively, an article on Gail Greenwood could be started. --GentlemanGhost 09:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I created an article stub for Gail Greenwood and moved the info on her from this article to it. I also expanded it to make it more useful. Consequently, I personally don't need this page anymore. --GentlemanGhost 00:15, 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 keep -- 9cds(talk) 06:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Thetford[edit]

Reason this article should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article has been determined to be noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy as discussed in it's Analysis for Deletion based on :

  • WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
  • WP:VER - Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.

using guidelines:

  • WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 05:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You forgot WP:PROF :) Anyhow, weak keep the article due to the high amount of google results [39] as well as Thetford's work in A Course In Miracles and his minor role in the Manhattan Project (can't find any evidence of Thetford's work on the Manhatten Project, except on Wikipedia and its mirrors...)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup the sections relating to ACIM, as these are rather subjective relative to the remainder of the biography.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And, by the way, people, keep in mind that the person who nominated this page for deletion for some reason is trying to destroy every ACIM-related article on Wikipedia. He is currently behind deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Foundation for Inner Peace, and Gary Renard. This person is attempting to hide personal bias behind attempts to uphold Wikipedia guidelines. He/she is relatively obsessed with getting ACIM off of Wikipedia. -- Andrew Parodi 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet association with both MK-Ultra and ACIM may make the subject notable, but the article needs drastic cleanup. At present it merits deletion as it fails WP:V. I'll revisit the AFD before close to see how it looks then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Delete and merge with ACIM per JzG (or, if there is no salvagable, verifiable content, as appears to be the case, just delete). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as apparent bad-faith nom. I ask that Ste4k withdraw this nomination and not relist it until this apparent dispute between Ste4k and Andrew Parodi is resolved, and that Andrew assumes good faith if he hasn't already. —EdGl 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would assume good faith if I had any reason to. A little history: Ste4k first came to my attention on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article. He/she placed a tag at the top of the page that said the topic wasn't "notable" and that the article didn't assert any notability. Another editor, who was completely neutral, said that the contesting of the article's notability was not valid as you can find plenty of evidence that the article is about a real topic and is notable. This editor was met with a rather defensive and hostile response by Ste4k, which can be read on the talk page of that article.
Because I was tired of all the arguing on the talk page, I sent Ste4k a message on his own personal talk page. I was met with a rather nasty reply about how it was inappropriate to talk to him/her on his/her talk page about some comment he/she had made about (and I quote) "some article". I was informed that he/she contributes to many pages on Wikipedia and doesn't remember any of them. I was then informed that I was too "attached" to the article, the suggestion being that if I were not "attached" to the article then I wouldn't make a statement that completely neutral editors agreed with.
And from there it just snow balled.... This person is on a campaign now to rid Wikipedia of every ACIM-related article, and is even slicing and dicing aspects of the main A Course In Miracles article, and doing so on the same flimsy grounds: that a few sources are not "verifiable". That is basically this person's only complaint: that some of these articles have sources whose verifiability does not meet with his/her approval. On the talk page for deletion proposal of Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Kickaha Ota wrote: "The disputes about particular sources mentioned in the article don't undermine the notability of the controversy itself." This is the only point I'm making in contesting all of Ste4k's deletion nominations of ACIM-related articles: disputes over particular sources do not warrant deletions of entire pages. It appears to me that Ste4k is simply looking for excuses to rid Wikipedia of ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I would also like to add that in the course of this edit war between the two of us, Ste4k has made inaccurate accusations that I am involved with "some advocacy group" and has suggested that I am in some way making money off of ACIM. Somehow, though he/she claims to love verifiability so much, Ste4k has made these statements without a shred of evidence. He will never find any evidence to support such accusations, because such accusations are completely untrue. I can assure that the frustration I have felt with this situation emanates mostly from the "editor" in me, not the person who reads ACIM. You are aware, aren't you, that I first encountered Ste4k on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles deletion proposal page; that is, I met him/her on the page for the second attempt to delete that article. The Wikipedia editor in me finds it very frustrating that after having worked hard to improve that page, it is facing yet another deletion attempt, and then in addition to the deletion attempt I must contend with Ste4k saying that the whole topic doesn't even exist at all. -- Andrew Parodi 04:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as author of widely-read book. JChap 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, did I miss something? It appears from the article he "transcribed and edited" ACIM, not authored it.--Isotope23 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JChap2007 and Tree Biting Conspiracy, notable author. Yamaguchi先生 08:27, 29 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Petty[edit]

Notability in question. Few if any relevant ghits [40] --NMChico24 05:17, 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. Flowerparty☀ 23:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ionics[edit]

Non-notable band, no sources for statements of notability, sole claim to fame relates to a blog on an AZ newspaper. May meet guidelines for speedy deletion. -- ChrisB 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. Better off in Myspace until they achieve notability - tours, charting albums, singles, etc.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only place found is the aforementioned blog—which appears actually not to be related to any newspaper—and random local venues alongside many other non-notable performers. Of the ~900 Google hits for "The Ionics", 90% or more are actually about chemistry or a water treatment company called "Ionics", etc. Note that the recently removed citation for 944 Magazine (which itself may not even be notable) actually pointed to an article about the 2005 Indonesian tsunami/earthquake (found on The Internet Archive, now a dead link). —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. Not a speedy candidate since the article's been around for a while. --Coredesat talk 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. And to answer Coredesat, this from WP:CSD: "The word "speedy" in this context refers to the rapid decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created." There's nothing about creation time that's a factor in CSD. RGTraynor 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oops, I misread A7 as having the time constraints of A8. --Coredesat talk 05:22, 29 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.

This was a tricky case. Doing some google searches does turn up, among other things, the fact that MadamimadaM does exist, according to their myspace. However, they went on indefinite hiatus in February, which makes the statement in that article that their next album is due out in April 2006 rather improbable. Strike 1.

All the external links in Skar and MadamimadaM's pages are broken, most of them just not returning anything and a couple returning domain-squatter pages. Strike 2.

When I found Skar listed in the track list for the Saw II soundtrack, I was about to declare the case closed, until I went over to Amazon and found zero mention of the band in their tracklist. Strike 3.

These articles provide no verifiable proof that they're notable at all. No information was brought forward to contradict this claim, so therefore, all of these articles are now deleted.

Mo0[talk] 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skar, MadamimadaM, Dementia (band) and many related articles[edit]

At best a non-notable band, at worst a blatant hoax. I am also nominating the following articles for deletion:

And the following band and its album articles created by the same person:

There may be more articles around these 2 bands I haven't fished out, someone with the time may wish to go through the contributions of the articles' creator and add to the above list as necessary.

Neither band gets many Google results at all, despite the claim that Skar's No Backing Down reached the Billboard Top 200! For example, Googling for Skar "No Backing Down" -Wikipedia gets a grand total of 3 hits, [42] "MadamimadaM" "the epic center" -wikipedia gets no hits, [43], and "Skar" "artificial reality" -wikipedia gets 18 hits. [44] If this sort of hoax is allowed to remain undeleted, it may well damage our credibility. Strong delete with extreme prejudice. Kimchi.sg 05:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the nomination a third band and its related articles:

There may be more. Google for dementia -wikipedia evolvere gets 462 non-relevant hits, [45] and dementia -wikipedia "shattered sky" gets 35 hits. [46] Enough said. Kimchi.sg 06:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another two: The Storybook, and 101 (UF album) (which is as "useless" an article as it gets - an album of a joke band without its own article). Kimchi.sg 06:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - one of Skar's songs debuted at #6 on the Billboard Top 200. That's good enough for me. I offer no opinion on MadamimadaM. - Richardcavell 05:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The song didn't, though. A simple search of Billboard.com with Skar brings up a rapper with no biography. Checking Billboard.com with "No Backing Down" yields zero results. The debut at #6 is a lie unless I am very, very wrong. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of this is verifiable through Allmusic.com or Amazon.com. Also, the "band" official webpages are nonexistent. Unless there is some HUGE oversight, this has to be all untrue/a hoax. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOT looks to be seeking notability on Wikipedia rather than establishing it in the article. Ste4k 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of it per nom. RGTraynor 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all, cannot find anything of note on any of the bands + albums. Looks to be a high quality hoax --Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Per above unless someone finds some actual evidence of listed claims. Wickethewok 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the above as severely non-notable. Speedy delete if somebody can show this is a hoax. KleenupKrew 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all GSeearch for Death Valley Dwellers and Lost Souls Union showed only from WP & mirror sites. There is/was a minor band called "Dementia" but with different personnel from those listed here. If not hoax definately nn. There was also an entry (Band) Dementia which was speedied on it's way. --Richhoncho 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, content is not verifiable and could be a hoax. Please message me if sources can be provided. Yamaguchi先生 08:24, 29 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, does not meet WP:BIO. --Ezeu 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Wapnick[edit]

Reason this article should be deleted:

This article has been determined to be noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy as discussed in it's Analysis for Deletion based on :

Comment Actually, it has yet to be deteremined whether this article is noncompliant with Wikipedia policies. That is the point of a deletion nomination: to get a consensus from other editors who together decide whether an article is noncompliant and deserves to be deleted. Wikipedia is not single handedly controlled by this nominating editor. -- Andrew Parodi 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
  • WP:VER - Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.

using guidelines:

  • WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is not vanity because it wasn't written by Kenneth Wapnick. Take a look at the page history and see who started this article. -- Andrew Parodi 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it seems it was written by a close friend of his [47], so it does fall under WP:VANITY. Also, after looking through the page history, it looks like that the page was manually moved, thus someone should add the article to the cut and paste move repair holding pen --TBCTaLk?!? 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a little background here. The editor in question who started this article is not in any way a "close friend" of Kenneth Wapnick's. He is a "student" of A Course In Miracles (which means that he reads the book), as well as a "student" of Kenneth Wapnick's (which means he reads books by Kenneth Wapnick, books about ACIM interpretation). To my knowledge, the two men have never even met.
Comment, he does seem to personally know Wapnick, as evidenced by this statement on the article's talk page [48]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current writing style of the article needs to be improved. But in my mind, that calls for editing, not deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to Foundation for A Course In Miracles per above. --Coredesat talk 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge (not that there's anything worth merging) and redirect to Foundation for A Course in Miracles per TBC. Indeed, WP:VAIN does not apply, and WP:No Hagiography is yet to be written. Still, it's completely unsourced and there's nothing in the article to suggest that the subject is any way important except through his connection to the ACIM foundation and book and he's already mentioned in both articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On reflection, and in view of Ste4k's comments later, I think delete is the way to go. As previously noted, nothing verifiable to merge that isn't already there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Regardless of nom's motivation, viewed dispassionately this guy is nowhere near individually notable. ACIM-cruft. --- GWO
Comment Viewed dispassionately, he is viewed by many as THE most important lecturer on ACIM in the world. Of the three people who brought ACIM to the world -- Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick -- he is the only remaining. -- Andrew Parodi 08:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that anyone should be tampering with Articles for Deletion discussions. The act is contemptable, and makes the entire subject matter suspect. How do we know now what anyone has truly said? Please note here the matter I am referring to. I believe this to be an act of bad faith. Ste4k 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for finally using the word "believe". That is all I interjected into your above statements, that you believe this page should be deleted because.... That is hardly "tampering". And I did not understand that those comments were viewed as your own "personal" comments, as they are largely verbatim transcriptions of Wikipedia policy. Therefore, all I felt I was doing was copyediting Wikipedia policy which I felt was incorrectly displayed. My apologizies. And you fail to recognize that when you nominate more than half a dozen ACIM-related articles for deletion, you begin to look suspect. The only thing I could assume is that perhaps you are a conservative Christian who doesn't like ACIM. Thankfully, I've been enlightened to the fact that you have a history of behaving this way with articles. You simply don't understand that there are better ways to resolve content disputes than to nominate an article for deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find Ste4k's new argument persuasive, and now say delete without prejudice against later creation of a redirect. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He could be mentioned in ACIM article, but is not that notable to justify a separate article. JChap 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the Foundation for A Course In Miracles article. Yamaguchi先生 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems notable enough to me and I don't see how we can successfully merge all this into the already big Course in Miracle article. And I don't see how it can hurt to have them seperate. Shanes 08:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO. Could be mentioned at main ACIM article.--Isotope23 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps merge. --Pjacobi 19:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom There aren't any sources in any of the "Course in Miracles" category that have any biographical information on Wapnick. Merging this information without any references will compromise the integrity of the newer version of the article on the book. Any of the other superfluous information on Wapnick's biography (this article under consideration) is already present in the newer page and would be redundant in a merge. The picture from this article has already been merged to the newer article on the book. I'd like everyone to reconsider their votes here since many changes have occurred over the entire category. Thanks. Ste4k 15:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ste4k's comment and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Harro5 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrebatus[edit]

Nonsense and link to private website. Possible vanity. Kf4bdy 05:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD 3, "any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections)"--TBCTaLk?!? 06:13, 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 speedy delete by Jimfbleak as CSD A7 nn-bio. Kimchi.sg 06:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Leos[edit]

Vanity. Kf4bdy 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nn bio.--Dakota ~ 06:07, 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 Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kling, Jr.[edit]

Vanity. Speedy Delete. Kf4bdy 06:10, 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. Avi 05:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Access Democracy[edit]

nn neologism. Probably ought to have been nominated at the same time as Direct Access Democracy Canada, which is currently nominated on its own AfD. Google results of the phrase are usually to mirrors of wikipedia, blog and chat board entries, and link repositories. Agent 86 06:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO. Not a lot of Google results [49]--TBCTaLk?!? 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was going to nominate this along with the above-mentioned DADC, but forgot as i was going to do one last check for any other independent usage of the term (doesn't seem to be). The current article seems to be solely referring to the non-notable usage at "etches.net". - David Oberst 06:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 09:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NEO is only a guideline, but WP:NOT is policy. See definition #1. Ste4k 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems to be a neologism invented by a particular party. - Richardcavell 23:48, 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 kept - the page creator forgot to update the template, is all. I fixed it. Come on, people, we can do better than this. DS 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Zeisler[edit]

This new page is not about Andi Zeisler but rather about Lisa Jervis, who already has her seperate page Travelbird 06:30, 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 already deleted by Harro5. Coredesat talk 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ediger[edit]

Vanity. Kf4bdy 06:38, 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 no consensus/default keep. --Ezeu 04:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Schucman[edit]

Reason this article should be deleted:

This article has been determined by to be noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy as discussed in it's here based on :

  • WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. This article hasn't any actual resources except circular references to a single book which doesn't describe Helen Schucman, and only arguably has any content from her writings. This violation of policy is not about the debatability of her writings. It doesn't matter if her writings are true or not, or if others had the right to publish ideas from them those writings.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.
  • WP:VER - Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. There are no verifiable resources to establish any reputability about this psychologist. The only available resources are self-published references to hearsay that differ in their opinions.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.
  • WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. As a psychologist, hasn't anything notable to mention. As an author she hasn't received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work.
It should be noted here that these ratings show copyright contention among the listings.
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. That includes relatively unknown psychologists which cannot be determined to have been responsible for various contending opinions about the ideas which she may or may not have written. Nor is it a platform to create an indiscriminate number of self-referenced, recursive sourcing articles that intend to establish obfuscated reputation.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ste4k, it's great when editors make thorough nominations, but it is not necessary to quote policies. You can just mention them or link to them. -- Kjkolb 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and apologies since I am rather new here. :) Several other nominations I had put up earlier got the opposite sort of comment. I'll strive to find the happy medium and I appreciate your comment. Ste4k 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article's a great deal of verbiage saying very little more than this lady claimed to channel Jesus. RGTraynor 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-written nom. --Coredesat talk 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person appears to be absolutely central to A Course in Miracles, so I suspect a few Keeps will be coming... (Will stay Neutral at present) --DaveG12345 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like DaveG said, this woman is a huge part of A Course in Miracles, which although kind of goofy IMHO is nonetheless quite popular (645,000 google hits). Just needs more criticism and citations to avoid pro-ACIM bias. --Nscheffey(T/C) 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And she is cited repeatedly in that article. There's very little content in Schucman's own article that isn't in the ACIM article. RGTraynor 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is a complete mess and subject was probably a fruitcake. These are reasons for cleanup/NPOV/OR tags rather than deleting. She seems to have spawned a fairly well known thing in ACIM, has had numerous books written that cannot but have her as a central figure. Certainly is notable and sourced enough. Certainly a hard subject to write a good article about but worth keeping. Well thought out nomination though --Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Helen Schucman was actually considered by most who knew her to be a highly intelligent and intellectual woman. As is discussed on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article (an article Ste4k wants deleted), Helen Schucman never literally meant that Jesus was the source of A Course in Mircales. She meant it was symbolic and metaphoric. -- Andrew Parodi 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Course in Miracles itself is largely unsourced and unverifiable, and appears to hope to establish notability by being listed in this encyclopedia rather than being notable in the first place. Most of its articles were written by two people who suffer from too much information looking for a topic. The creeping-artikalism of such a category in itself required at least six speedy deletes for WP:NOT and WP:NEO. The book itself hasn't yet established whom has actually written it. Please see discussions in the Articles of Deletion for much more information. It successfully evaded peer scrutiny in my humble opinion. Ste4k 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there is a great deal of verifiable evidence about A Course In Miracles. You simply will not accept this. I wish you would stop wasting everyone's time and stop trying to call attention to yourself and get everyone's approval. As per the large amounts of Google hits and its Amazon.com sakes ranking, it is obvious that ACIM hardly needs Wikipedia to establish its notability. ACIM was notable BEFORE the invention of Wikipedia. And the authorship of the book is indeed established, and is in fact discussed on the pages Authorship of A Course in Miracles and Helen Schucman, pages which, if you had your way, others would not be able to read because they would be deleted.
The issue is not whether ACIM is notable or not, but that you don't want ACIM to be notable. I find this fascinating. I find you fascinating. Please share more about yourself with the rest of us. So far, we know that you are new to Wikipedia and don't like ACIM. Is there anything more you'd like to share? -- Andrew Parodi 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment I think that my contributions page is available for anyone to look at, and it can speak for itself. Per the acronym "ACIM", the cited sources, specifically the court case, show that the other cited sources are all one board of directors and three different names for the same group. The logo "ACIM" is also a registered trademark. As an editor concerned for the sake of the encyclopedia, I believe that using registered trademarks is a means of gaining brand acceptance. I don't feel that it is necessary to provide a brand name in an article, but most especially since the book itself is out-of-print and in the public domain. That in my opinion is providing a severe POV and can be construed as a means of attracting business to the owners of the trademark "ACIM" which are listed currently as the other cited sources. Those cited sources should also be considered as primary sources rather than secondary sources since the court case points out plainly that they are all of the same association which failed to establish copyrights for the book in the first place. Ste4k 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hope everyone is aware that Ste4k has a personal vendetta against all ACIM-related articles on Wikipedia. In addition to supporting the deletion attempt of the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, this user has initiated deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, and Gary Renard. And on the main ACIM page, this editor will not accept anything, not even the official sites of Foundation for ACIM and Foundation for Inner Peace, as acceptable sources. Personal bias masked as attempt to uphold Wikipedia guidelines (all the while ignoring Wikipedia guidelines by trying to deprive Wikipedia of articles about a notable topic). -- Andrew Parodi 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The conduct of an editor with respect to an article has no logical connection with whether the article should be kept (with the possible exception of an editor writing a vanity article). I have looked at some of these articles and think that while Wikipedia should have an article on ACIM and on each of the authors, the other articles should either be merged (if they contain useful information) or deleted outright as, to use a wikilogism, vanispamicruftisement. I was not aware of the existence of some of the articles on your list and will review them too. Thinking that crappy, POV articles should be deleted rather than improved is a common mistake for new editors to make, so let's not bite the newbies, assume good faith and be civil. JChap 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I have noted on the Talk:Authorship of A Course in Miracles page, I had already attempted to be civil with this person. I tried to work out our disagreements on his/her talk page, to no avail. This editor has repeatedly, and erroneously, given the false implication that the only reason I am interested in keeping these pages from being deleted is because I am making money off of ACIM. That is false, and perhaps even liable.
While it is true that "the conduct of an editor with respect to an article has no logical connection with whether the article should be kept", it is also true that this editor has apparently mistaken deletion talk pages as places to work out editorial disagreements. And I do believe that what encouraged this editor to nominate so many ACIM-related articles for deletion is the fact that this editor got upset with me and my contesting of some of his/her statements.
If it is true that "thinking that crappy, POV articles should be deleted rather than improved is a common mistake for new editors", could someone enlighten this editor to this fact? And could other editors keep this in mind when voting whether or not to delete these pages? -- Andrew Parodi 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom, fails WP:V by miles (and could redirect without merge to A Course in Miracles which appears to include some non-ACIM-source material). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note: I just conducted some editing of this page, removing what I believe to be unfocused comments, and interjecting what I believe to be a more encyclopedic tone. The article needs work, obviously, but not deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to ACIM or Foundation for ACIM. Notable course, but association with it not make a notable individual. Ste4k's blanket deletion-nominations of these articles is no more bad faith than ACIM members blanket creation of them. If you create lots of bad articles about your non-notable people in your favourite cult, you should expect them to get nominated at once. -- GWO
Comment. A Course In Miracles can hardly qualify as a cult when it is only a book. I am a "student" of the Course, which means that all I do is read the book. I attend no meetings, and do not interact with anyone (aside from the Internet) on a daily basis who reads the Course. I have altered no behavior in my daily lifestyle as a result of reading the Course. It isn't a cult. Just a book. And I'm not saying you said this, but just to clarify, I didn't create all of these ACIM-related articles. I agree that some of them are of dubious importance, such as the ACIM church movement one, and a few others (come to think of it, Attitudinal Healing may not be of note either). But Helen Schucman herself is very notable with regard to ACIM, which itself has been deemed notable by Wikipedia consensus. -- Andrew Parodi 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One could, with at least as much accuracy, question your own bias, seeing as your contribution list shows that you are significantly invested in these articles. For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes prima facie bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased third party websites for verification; of course we're not going to take ACIM's uncorroborated word for its claims about itself, any more than we would about any other subject's own website. RGTraynor 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am presenting no bias. What did I present above? Facts. Click on each link and see that this person is indeed behind the deletion attempts of all of these pages.
The only "investment" is an investment in fairness. This editor is claiming that ACIM is not notable and not even a verifiable phenomenon, which is tantamount to saying that ACIM doesn't even exist. When we present the official websites of ACIM in attempts to prove that ACIM does exist and is notable, this editor ignores that and says they are not suitable.
Because I do read ACIM, it goes without saying that these articles are of interest to me. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that most editors agree that ACIM is a notable topic, and this person is on his/her own campaign to contradict what is the consensus of many neutral editors.
You wrote: "For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes prima facie bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased third party websites for verification...." In that same vein, I am failing to see why my presentation of facts (that this editor has nominated several ACIM-related articles for deletion and continues to deny that ACIM is notable and verifiable, often rejecting every reasonable bit of verification offered) should be discounted simply because I read ACIM and am paying attention to what this editor is doing. -- Andrew Parodi 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have presented only the flimsiest of assertions as your "facts". Plainly the same editor has filed these AfDs, but I've done the same when I've filed an AfD and found several linked and equally non-notable articles. So far, the vast majority of your contributions to these AfD debates involves spamming them all to claim vendetta, and far less about what elements of WP:BIO and the notability guidelines you believe these articles meet. Myself, I'd prefer to see less smokescreen and more debate on the merits, please. RGTraynor 06:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that what I have presented is factual (that all these deletion nominations are filed by the same person), then how can it be a smokescreen? I suppose I've offered a factual smokescreen. Interesting.
The point in noting that this person filed many deletion attempts of related articles is in noting that this person singles out the same topics, likely because he/she doesn't like them personally. Personal dislike of a particular genre does not justify deletion of articles related to the genre.
The other thing that makes me think that this person does not like this genre and is attempting to rid Wikipedia of it, is that this person will not accept ANY verification that these topics exist. If you offer this person the official sites of these organizations, he/she cries "spam". If you offer the link to the Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com listings to demonstrate notability by way of high sales rank, again, he/she cries "spam". If you offer an article that discusses the notability of the topic, he/she contests the qualifications of the person who wrote the article. And then, after all of this has failed, the person turns around and accuses you of being "too close" to the article, in my case alledging that I'm making money off of this (all without evidence, I might add; I make NO money off of ACIM). There is no winning with this person. It becomes evident that he/she just doesn't like this topic at all.
I agree that the article is not very well written at present. I didn't start this article and I only started working on it after this deletion nomination. But the issue here is notability, not the quality of writing. -- Andrew Parodi 07:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ACIM article. This has virtually nothing about anythign else. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the author of a widely read, influential (if goofy) book, she is notable. Andrew Parodi has said he is improving the article, so let's give him a chance. JChap 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A rather obvious keep to me. We have many articles on much less read authors. As we should. If the article has POV issues or other flaws then fix them, don't just delete. Shanes 08:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, fail that merge per jzg. Seems like a few committed sould running around filling up WP with diverse content spun from the ACIM to give the fringe movement a reputable web presence and then preying upon the good faith assumptions and consensus approach of WP editors. Bringing an article to AfD is designed to promote discussion and certainly does not entail automatic deletion. Insofar as this debate helps clarify the value of such articles, accusations of bad faith are unhelpful and come across as contrarian. Eusebeus 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talk about a lack of good faith.... I am not the one who started this article or most of the other articles that Ste4k is nominating for deletion. They were mostly started by another guy whose intentions you are not aware of. I think they were started by him because he truly believed these were notable topics. To be honest, I myself, a student of the Course, was surprised that he thought certain things about ACIM deserved pages. But on the other hand, I think it is wrong that Ste4k (or whatever) is attempting to have all these pages deleted simply because he/she doesn't like this topic. That's all any of this is really about. -- Andrew Parodi 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one seems obvious... keep. No idea who she is, never read her book, but it has sold millions of copies apparently. Authors of works such as this are notable. I did a little research and found her name in many publications. Need me to name them? While the content of the article may need work, ithe entire article need not be deleted. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:08, 30 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. Avi 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

256-bit[edit]

The article says that such processors do exist, and discusses in detail how you'd need a computer the size of the universe for such an architecture to be necessary. Thus I think the subject is a little bit premature, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. An anon removed the prod tag, claiming there are 256-bit devices (despite the text of the article), so if somebody provides a source to correct me on this point obviouslly I'll withdraw the nomination. For now, delete. -- SCZenz 06:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There may not be 256-bit processors, but there are certainly 256-bit busses on high-end video cards (see for example [50]). I don't know that we need a separate article at this time just for them, though. —Lamentation :( 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; violates WP:NOT and probably WP:NOR and WP:V as well. It's an article about practically nothing; 256-bit is theoretically possible (gosh, really?), 64-bit handles everything we need right now, and that's about all it says. Ravenswing 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:V. --Coredesat talk 08:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and it messes up the N-Bit template too. --DaveG12345 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although allow re-creation at a future date if the content is different than present, and 256-bit processors or a system using 256-bit archetechture - or a games console - are created (although this seems unlikely for the forseeable future in computing terms, i.e. 5+ years) TheJC TalkContributions 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, its creator should read Wikipedia:NOT. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:52, 30 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. Avi 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Oak Community Church, Burnaby, British Columbia[edit]

Obviously a non-notable local church. Not enough for a Wikipedia entry.

  • Delete per nom. It sounds like a nice enough church, much like those found in profusion in every community in North America. RGTraynor 08:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable church. Fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Desperately needs some citations and a more NPOV tone, but I found it mildly interesting, and I have no problems with its "notability" or otherwise. David L Rattigan 10:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - could actually be a nice readable article but clearly fails to have reliable sources, no significant media mentions to be found. Essentially it's a nice church where nothing of significant interest or note has happenned --Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, barely asserts encyclopedic value; however, if I were to apply the same criteria that seems to apply to schools, I'd have to say keep. Agent 86 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable KleenupKrew 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because it's been around for 80+ years doesn't make it notable. —EdGl 21:12, 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 12, 1945[edit]

Please tell me we're not keeping articles for individual dates these days. —Lamentation :( 07:24, 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 both. Proto///type 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series and List of weapons in Resident Evil 4[edit]

Similar to the AFD on Weapons of Doukutsu Monogatari, these to articles are lists of items in a video game, and wholly game-guide content (something Wikipedia is not), including suggested use of each item and secret uses and such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove all the game-guide content, we're left with "This is a pipe" and "This is a handgun" and "This is a crutch." Not exactly encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, that's what the article explains. It lists where the weapons are available, what their effects are, and which real world guns they're based on. I have purposefully revised edits of the RE4 weapons article in order to keep all and any game-guide content out of it.--FrostyBytes 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show me where the game-guide content is? I don't seem to be able to spot it. --FrostyBytes 22:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It lists where the weapons are available, what their effects are,
That is game-guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see your point now. Delete, then. But the weapons will then need a short listing in the main article, which I feel like doing myself. --FrostyBytes 07:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Resident Evil Outbreak and Resident Evil 4, respectively, as per WP:FICT. Shimmin 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What? A Guide? Secret Uses? I looked and they arn't none there. I Agree that the article needs shortening (This is a bent pipe etc) but Not Deleting. John Z. Delorean 15:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 16:37, 27 June 2006 (BST)[reply]
  • Keep I think it has a reason to be here. Even if it is long. And it's very useful. A must-have for all of the Resident Evil Outbreak Community. Keep it. Besides, i had also found your page for Final Fantasy VII through a search, and that page had an entire walkthrough. Keep this, Keep this, Keep this. peter piper
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HotWings 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft, fancruft KleenupKrew 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both unencyclopedic. Good for gamefaqs.com but not here. —EdGl 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Sorry to the People who think these Articles are useful, but mere Usefulness is not a Criterion for keeping an Article, which is why this Site is not called Wikiphonedirectory. All this Information is readily available on GameFAQs, so there is no Need for us to have it here. — Haeleth Talk 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - gamecruft. Artw 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Wickning1 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, Not sure why people think this is a strategy guide, at the very least it should be merged into the Resident Evil 4 article, albeit in a shortened form. I don't think you can read in any strategy guide that the Red 9 was based upon a WW2 variant of the Mauser C-96 pistol or the rocket launcher was modeled after the Russian RPG 7 .--Banana! 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most guides on GameFAQs begin with lists of items/weapons/powerups/combos, that's why it reads like a part of a strategy guide. It sounds like the interesting information you mentioned would make a good paragraph in the main RE article.. 'Many weapons in the game are based upon real weapons, for instance...' - Wickning1 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It certainly needs some tweeking regarding punctuation and grammar, perhaps a shaving or rephrasing of some information, too, but this is hardly a strategy guide. Granted, it is large, and the only reason my only contribution to this page has been the addition of the names of the actual weapons these models are based on is because I'd probably end up making the article even larger if I started on the descriptions. Regardless of its shortcomings, this article is informative to those interested in the "Outbreak" series. It should be edited, not entirely deleted. Gamer Junkie 00:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both' or transwiki to a game wiki. Cruft. --Kunzite 01:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, nomination withdrawn (see debate). Just zis Guy you know? 11:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Renard[edit]

Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3. This slightly appears to be a vanity page used to support a book which hasn't received multiple awards. Without references the article is original research at best, and it does not establish any sort of notability that can be referenced about this author. Ste4k 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Err, the guy's book's sales rank on Amazon is 1,313, which is pretty hefty; there's nothing in WP:BIO that requires books to win multiple awards for their authors to be notable. I agree that the article needs considerable cleanup to be worth much as biography (heck, his Amazon profile has more bio info), but this certainly clears the WP:BIO bar and by a good bit. RGTraynor 08:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, appears to be at least marginally notable per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 08:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After double-checking, seems to fail WP:BIO - only 429 unique Google hits, and no mentions in any notable media. --Coredesat talk 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 429 unique G-hits is rather a lot, actually. RGTraynor 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similiar problem with Ste4k nominating an article for deletion just because she had issues with it. Not sure she understands what AfD is for, she hasn't responded to any of my comments. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd be willing to talk about your situation with her, I'd be interested in hearing it. -- Andrew Parodi 08:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with an editor, that cannot be solved between the two (or three) of you, you should consider an RfC. Using this as an argument in AfD just confuses the issues here. JChap 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (just) and merge in the book article, since the two are essentially a single subject. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge per JzG. JChap 20:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general consensus looks to be to merge this article with its subordinate, cleanup and find reputible sources. I'll perform that as a project and I withdraw this nomination. Ste4k 05:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book is notable enough to have its own article, and I don't see why we then shouldn't have one on the author. Shanes 08:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments, notable enough to meet WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Coredesat talk 09:46, 29 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. jni 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Urfed[edit]

non-notable band, no google hits except myspace Travelbird 07:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. ~ PseudoSudo 07:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the article asserts a cult following, so SD is out. That aside, sheesh, how NN can one get? So they've done a couple gigs in churches. My high school chamber singers group did that much. RGTraynor 08:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per PseudoSudo. That is not an assertion of notability, it is wishful thinking and without sources. I can find none that are not MySpace links. NN-bio. SM247 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. Assertion of notability has no verification via reliable sources. --Coredesat talk 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unverifiable assertion is still an assertion. The Speedy criteria only applies to articles that don't bother to explain why the editor feels the subject is notable. CSD states that If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. This assertion is clearly disputed (not least because, even if true, it's nowhere near WP's Notability guidelines), but it's still an assertion, so AfD is the right place. Oh, and delete, by the way. Seb Patrick 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to exist on Myspace but doesn't appear to have released a charting record on an indie label or two on a major label; no charting singles, national tours or notable members claimed either.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creator has blanked the article, tagged with {{db-author}}. --Coredesat talk 05:25, 29 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. --Ezeu 04:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiReader[edit]

Contesting subject's notability. Note the corresponding projectspace and meta pages. As the project is mostly active on de: and I do not read German, I do not know if they've gotten press coverage or anything to contribute to notability; however, as de:WikiReader is simply a cross-namespace redirect to their projectspace page on the topic rather than an actual article, I can assume not. Bring it up if I am mistaken. ~ PseudoSudo 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant to projectspace. --Coredesat talk 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable and self-referential. --Nscheffey(T/C) 13:00, 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. --Ezeu 04:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six-hour novel[edit]

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Shoehorn 08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely rubbish vanity. The "author" mentioned links to a User page, and it's essentially self-serving made up guff. I like how James Joyce was supposedly an "unintentional" proponent of something made up sixty-five years after he died. Non-notable neologisms are bad enough, but ones masquerading as a serious literary genre, as an English graduate, make me cry. Seb Patrick 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and possible WP:NOR. Surely it depends on your font size? "A six-hour novel may also cover ten hours"? I think I can see where this theory starts breaking down... --DaveG12345 09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research - author's own opinion, unreferenced theory.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  10:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fabricated from wholecloth. 7 Google hits, two from wikipedia. I'm taking the link to this out of Literary technique right now. --Nscheffey(T/C) 13:42, 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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Martin[edit]

About high school football player without legs. Gets less than 500 hits on google (under "Bobby Martin" football dayton) and almost none on google groups. He will likely not be notable after he finishes high school (if he hasn't already). Burgwerworldz 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 08:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry Bobby, but for now you're not quite notable enough per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 10:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain and comment He is nominated for an ESPY Award. See here (hit "Vote Now") and scroll down to "Best Male Athlete With A Disability". Whether that warrants inclusion in WP or not, I don't know. -- Kicking222 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to Strong keep. Aside from the ESPY nom, a quick Google search of "Bobby Martin"+football shows A LOT of hits from reliable sources- Sports Illustrated, USA Today, the Boston Globe, etc. Thus, he passes WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 00:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had put Dayton in my original search because the name is common and could refer to other people. There are lots of human interest stories done by ESPN and Sports Illustrated done just to get away from the mainstream, that doesn't mean that they are all intitled to an article here. With all the publicity aside, I'm sure he's far from the first player in high school football to have a major physical disability. And the ESPY awards, they are a set of awards given by a cable network based on fan votes, I don't think that qualifies as a very ligitimate award. When all is said and done, he's just a high school football player with no legs, that's it, that's not even close to notable, ESPY or no ESPY. --Burgwerworldz 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Cable network that has a wider audience than some broadcast networks. ESPN is no G4. --DarkAudit 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While ESPN has a wide audience for a cable channel, it does not and will never have a wider audience than the broadcast networks. The ESPY is not a serious award, it's pure entertainment. ESPN and the like do lots of these "public interest" stories for local athletes, they do not all deserve and article here. --Burgwerworldz 03:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, "the like" does not have the reach of an ESPN. The ESPN name carries much greater weight than a Fox Sports Net or a Comcast Sports with audiences and advertisers alike. --DarkAudit 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ESPY nomination shows notability. --DarkAudit 17:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DarkAudit -- NickSentowski 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear particularly notable. High school football player. KleenupKrew 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kicking222, Google hits do suggest that this person is notable. Yamaguchi先生 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unusually notable; beg to differ with Burgwerworldz on the impact of receiving an ESPY. RFerreira 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Media coverage satisfies WP:BIO. Eluchil404 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 protologism. DS 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homohypocrite[edit]

Neutral Moving this here because article was taged for prod delete by another user, the tag was subsequently removed by the creator of the article Travelbird 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Made-up nonsense. --Jamoche 08:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Tevildo 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 09:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (pronounced dI'lĭt) per above. --DaveG12345 09:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Nearly Headless Nick 10:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even a neologism. Ah! neohypocrite! Yup. Delete while shaking head in hypocritical sadness. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google gets exactly four hits, two of which are in French, and one of which says "Hey i made a new word !" The article cannot be speedy deleted, unfortunately; which reflects more on our policies, and their limitations, than it does on the merit of this article—or lack thereof. GeorgeStepanek\talk 10:38, 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 Speedily deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AGSHMWK[edit]

blatant advertisement (speedy delete was contested) Travelbird 08:35, 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 speedy delete attack page CSD A6 -- Samir धर्म 09:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real encyclopedia[edit]

It's a list of complaints the author has about Wikipedia. Speedy tag removed, not that I'm surprised, given one of the complaints is CSD. --Jamoche 09:08, 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. Nonsense and/or hoax.Madchester 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost City of Geraptiku[edit]

a hoax Travelbird 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonsense, ad for some Neopets quest. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --Coredesat talk 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupidity. Danny Lilithborne 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic anyway. If it's called "Mystery Island", why give the city a stupid name like Geraptiku? (or vice versa if you happen to find "Geraptiku" a very pleasant name) --DaveG12345 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a hoax, but uncyclopedic Nearly Headless Nick 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - from what I see it is a hoax, but regardless it is unencyclopedic. --WinHunter (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it... if you dare. It's exciting and fun, and nobody knows whether it's real or not -- you could be the first to find out!
    But it's not even a NeoEncyclopedia article. — Haeleth Talk 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lose it. george 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is without a doubt a worthless page to be wasting peoples time on Wikipedia, delete it. JustinAPetersWVU 11:40, 29 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Pravecek[edit]

Non notable: text is correct, but this is his only remote claim to fame, which fails WP:BIO: 9 distinct Google hits Fram 09:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 09:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO Nearly Headless Nick 09:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JPD (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what about the guy who re-fueled the helicopter that lifted the last part of the CN Tower into place? --Nscheffey(T/C) 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refuted: Larry Pravecek received newspaper coverage and was invited to attend the 30th anniversary of the CN Tower because he performed a famous task in its construction. Dajhorn 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nn, fails WP:BIO and qualify for CSD A7. --WinHunter (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2006 (U
    • Refuted: This article does not meet any of the eight general criteria for speedy delete. Dajhorn 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refuted CSD A7: Unremarkable people do not get invitations from official agencies or full-page newspaper coverage. Dajhorn 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure they do, if its a slow news day. And it was. Maury 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Larry Pravecek attracted a crowd at the 30th anniversary celebration and people were asking for his autographs. The task that Pravecek accomplished recieved significant local coverage, was technically difficult, and dangerous. Additionally, it is notably ironic that an American finished an important Canadian cultural icon using American equipment. Dajhorn 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More rationale: The article likely meets WP:BIO for just the local coverage and interest in Toronto. The stub can be enhanced by discussing Pravecek's long career, his relationship with the Canadians that led to the ceremony invitation, the interesting story behind the Skycrane, or the cultural significance of his participation in the event. Using AfD to stomp on biographical stubs within a few hours of posting (because the topic returns too few Google hits) is shallow and hasty. Delete the article in a few months if it does not attract more interest. Dajhorn 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shallow and hasty? What info could be added in the next couplpe of months to make this person more notable than he is now? Fram 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Dajhorn. --TruthbringerToronto 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, so very weak. I was prepared to say delete, but re-read WP:BIO just in case. It could be said that this fellow achieved "renown or notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events" per WP:BIO (and it might be a real streeetttccchhh to say "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field"). Agent 86 17:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nscheffey. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sanity, reason, and all things good. Maury 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Even if he is notable, I don't see how an entire article can be written about him. —EdGl 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary of anyone who once appeared on the local news. Might (I stress might) qualify for a single sentence in CN Tower. -- GWO
  • Delete per GWO. Inner Earth 15:30, 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 Delete as attack page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's mistakes[edit]

Not encyclopaedic. Fundamentally POV. Discussions about whether a particular government official made mistakes should be in the subject's biography. David | Talk 09:25, 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. --Ezeu 04:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Audio[edit]

Website rank is 2.1 million. Google test using link:massiveaudio.com yields six links. Reads like an avert. I do not believe that this meets any notability guidelines. Was originally prodded but prod removed by article creator Hbdragon88 09:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep looks like this passes WP:CORP Nearly Headless Nick 09:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Advertising. Fails WP:CORP for not having multiple non-trivial news sources (Ghits are all product listings, or press releases). Verified six links is all per Hbdragon88. Tychocat 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, massive failure of WP:ADS. Also fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep should be much better now. used rockford fosgate and other car audio as templete. will be updated as well. if there are suggestions to keep the page please let me knowEbackwardse 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement KleenupKrew 20:33, 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 move to a better name, which has been done already. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Labour's Terrorism Laws[edit]

The article is under a POV title at the moment as "New Labour" is a campaign slogan and a description of a particular faction within a party (if faction is not too solid a term). It is a point of view that the Acts passed since 1997 are those of this faction, and indeed most of the provisions were those requested by the security and police services. While a discussion of the provisions of anti-terrorist legislation is encyclopaedic, it should be done in a single article on Terrorism laws of the United Kingdom, not split up by government. David | Talk 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. - FrancisTyers · 10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is this article intended to contain that isn't already at Anti-terrorism legislation#Anti-terrorist_laws_by_country? Uncle G 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, title fails WP:NPOV, article is redundant to article subsection mentioned by Uncle G. --Coredesat talk 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for UncleG based reasons. -- GWO
  • Keep and move. It needs a better name, more in line with Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland), which referred to a series of laws in the 1970s and 1980s during the height of the IRA terrorism campaign. (Curiously, the legal narrative to do with that campaign has continued to progress over the years entirely independently of these laws, Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act 2006.).... This particular terrorism policy is deeply implicated with the current administration -- however you name it, and it does need a useable name -- and any inputs from the security and police services have been virtually overwhelmed by the political machinations. It begins with the first very broad definition of "terrorism", and some of the laws had to be rushed through Parliament in a hurry when previous versions were ruled over the mark and unconstitutional. There is a self-contained story here. Goatchurch 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move (name without the New Labour) and later expand to other governments which will come. --Ioannes Pragensis 14:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the name to remove the reference to New Labour, and expand to include anti-terror laws from previous governments. Change the tone so as not to focus on the disputes. Improve the article. But for all that don't delete'. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the article has already been renamed (which was a serious objection). The article covers a burst of legislation covering Terrorism in the United Kingdom that is different in kind and form from the previous Northern Ireland related terrorist legislation. It is certainly noteworthy. The article itself (now renamed) does not seem POV to me (a lawyer based in the UK) and is pretty accurate. It doesn't do the same job as Anti-terrorism legislation and can be seen as the complement of Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland). Previous governments (of both persuasions) did not make discrete anti-terrorism legislation in the same way -- the PoT being the mainstay of the law in that area, hence (in my view) the present compass of the article should stay -- though with a bit of supplementation. That isn't a political point -- it might be that a Tory or Old Labour government would have legislated a good deal in the same situations. Francis Davey 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something NPOV. KleenupKrew 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename or merge Artw 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Given the changes in the article including the rename, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be any other article into which this could practically be merged, I would like to withdraw the nomination. David | Talk 18:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's very helpful (I think). Certainly the new name is much better. I think its helpful to have two articles on terrorism law in the UK, because of the big changes made in 2000. Francis Davey 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - better name, now.--Aldux 00:29, 30 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. --Ezeu 04:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of SYSTRAN machine translation[edit]

Original research, not to mention that RTT evaluation is pretty much disproved as a methodology. - FrancisTyers · 10:32, 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. --Ezeu 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A2NWO[edit]

Local wrestling cruft. Gets less than 250 hits on google. Seems a little "inside". Burgwerworldz 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article is varifiable and true. You can find information about A2NWO at various websites including, but not limited to, http://www.a2nwo.com, http://www.nwawisconsin.com/shop/, and several message boards where Will "The Thrill" Sentowski frequents. To members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling would disagree that this is WP:NN because it is a legitimate article that is common knowledge among wrestling fans in the Green Bay-Appleton television market.
From WP:NN:

Criteria for products and services

A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
    • This criterion excludes:
      • Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
      • Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7
  2. The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.
Again... go to http://www.nwawisconsin.com/shop/ and look at a closeup view of the video covers... Every one of them mentions of Circle Too Productions. They have well over 50 legitimate and copywritten videotapes, photographs, booklets, and television commercials, beyond the continuing existance of NWA Wisconsin. I will admit that A2NWO is a bit more 'inside', hence the recommendation of a page move.

-- NickSentowski 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article starts with "A2NWO is a group of friends", there's hundreds of independent federations out there, they can't all have their own articles and put stuff about their own angles and such. Your argument is hardly convincing and by your context, I could have a public access TV show for 5 weeks and I'd be entitled to an article here. --Burgwerworldz 01:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- minor local organization, barely a step above a backyard wrestling promo. Haikupoet 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is minor in the scope of things and should either be a part of another article... otherwise it has no placeNegroSuave 17:57, 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 keep all. --Ezeu 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dopamine (band)[edit]

Does not assert sufficient notability. Whether the band is actually sufficiently notable on the UK music scene will require input from our UK editors. As written, unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related articles:

which are asserted to be the band's albums. Neither is shown to be notable, either. --Nlu (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Admittedly, I am not a UK editor, but I find nothing to pass WP:MUSIC. Tychocat 11:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The articles don't seem to assert any notability, so they fail WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk 11:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of keeps The band have toured the UK and have national dates lined up until October, so that is one of the critieria for WP:BAND. Saying that, two EPs and one indie album with another in the offing marks the start to their career. Vaugely notable?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're on a record label and have had a nationwide tour, including w/ Funeral for a Friend. Article claims that the band once had a Funeral for a Friend band member, which makes the article meet at least 2 criteria of WP:MUSIC. —EdGl 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meet WP:MUSIC per touring all over Great Britain and in Ireland, radio play, and multiple mentions in the press, see [52]. --Joelmills 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above, meets WP:MUSIC guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:23, 29 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.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precharge[edit]

Not notable. Advert. Benjaminstewart05:-) 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been revised to be more focused on general information related to preCharge. Please note, preCharge is #2 in this space, whereas cybersource is in fact listed in Wikipedia. precharge 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanispamvertisement, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 11:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that contributor is same name as company/article, raising POV question and evident self-promotion. Fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

preCharge meets "Criteria for companies and corporations" #1. preCharge meets "Criteria for products and services" #1. User:precharge 11:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fails WP:CORP for not having "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Tychocat 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominated for G7 by author. Tevildo 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Felt it was Wiki ready but the masses didn't agree. Thanks all. User:precharge 12:07, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan the Security Guard[edit]

This article was the theater of a prod war; this shouldn't happen per policy, so I am taking it here instead. Rationale was: "nn, self promotion". The article history [53] is also relevant (apparently, the article was deleted from he:, which may be relevant as well). Prod was removed with rationale: "no self promotion - all data taken from press and IMDb". (Liberatore, 2006). 11:58, 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 -- 9cds(talk) 06:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kethu Viswanatha Reddy[edit]

Another article that was prod-warred about. Contested prods should be taken here per WP:PROD, so here we are. The prod rationale was: "Google hits below 50, incl. WP & mirrors - too low for a modern writer". Personally, I believe this rationale is invalid: this is not an author of the "western world", so the number of Google hits is not necessarily relevant. If the claims reported in the article are correct, this author is notable enough. On the other hand, the article is still unreferenced. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the original prod-der; I don't see any prod war - war in WP context would be repeated actions undoing others' actions (edit war, wheel war). There are some articles that are borderline cases. When I prod them and someone who I perceive to be more knowledgeable about the subject than me de-prods them, i let it be. No point in bringing to AfD and wasting the community's time. Contested Prods should be brought to AFD and not must; So, if the Prod-der feels that the de-prodding is correct, he can remain silent. --Gurubrahma 05:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't check the recent history of this article. The prod tag was added and removed no less than six times. That wasn't you (the original tagger), but yet someone insists on proposing this article for deletion. In this conditions, gaining consensus is a sensible choice, not a waste of time. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wages of the Vandalism all my edits are suffering at the hands of a particularly malignant troll. He is indiscriminate in reverting all my edits. Sorry to everyone for causing this, but the fault is not really mine. Regards, ImpuMozhi 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kethu Vishwanatha Reddy is a published author in the Telugu language. It appears that some of his short stories are form part of the syllabus of the GCE. His works have also been reviewed in the Hindu, a prominent important Indian newspaper. I think the shortage of google hits points more to WP:BIAS than non-notability. ImpuMozhi 14:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found several of his books at http://catalog.loc.gov (search for author Reddy, Ketu Viswanatha and then click more info). Could someone add his name in Telugu script and in Hindi , and add links to any articles on him in other language Wikipedias? --TruthbringerToronto 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ImpuMpzhi, subject's works are indeed included in the 2008 A-Level Telugu set reading, which means somebody knowledgable thinks he's a notable Telugu language author. Needs cleanup which would be, as noted previous, something for someone with a grasp of Telugu. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough. --Coredesat talk 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create a re-direct from "Ketu Viswanatha Reddy" as well. --Gurubrahma 05:03, 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. --Ezeu 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fitch[edit]

Try as I might, I am unable to verify anything within this article, as all narrowly defined searches turn up Wikipedia mirrors and one or two blog sites. This article has been here since October 2005, and may well be a hoax, otherwise not apparently notable. Yamaguchi先生 12:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I tried a search under "Dan Fitch" and found a reference to "a novice promotor" in wrestling in NW UK. So not notable. --Richhoncho 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of an entry. Sasaki 13:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable NawlinWiki 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is just a vanity post or someone with an axe to grind. NegroSuave 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO, barely verifiable. --Coredesat talk 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not notable at all, unworthy of an entry. --CJ 06:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not notable, and too opinionated of a piece.JB196 01:16, 30 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. --Ezeu 04:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Craving[edit]

another non-notable band, no Google hits Travelbird 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It primarily acts as a link from the activities of the actor Hugh Mitchell and so serves a purpose to tell those interested about the band that he is in. It also gives reasonable descriptions of the activities of a semmingly upcoming band which may be useful for those interested in the band or for third party viewers. (Bestbassist) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/The_Craving" )
Comment Perhaps you could expand the article so that its notability becomes more apparent. Travelbird 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable band. One EP and touring on the South Coast only does not satisfy WP:BAND criteria. Myspace would be a better location for this information until notablity is conferred upon the band.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real assertion of notability, and having a member who played a rather small role in a Harry Potter film does not confirm importance. -- Kicking222 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk 21:08, 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. --Ezeu 04:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Chiang[edit]

Delete. A Google search using the terms "andrew chiang" and communist turn up this wikipedia page and only two other personal sites. Acyso 06:13, 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. Harro5 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Band-demonica[edit]

Non-notable WP:BAND WP:SPAM Self-produced, self-released, self-PR and to top it all, couldn't actually get the title of the article usefully correct for their purposes. --Richhoncho 22:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND in any case. Tevildo 12:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a non-notable band. 3 self-produced albums and nothing about chart positions, national tours or notable members. Better off on Myspace until notable status is achieved.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. Wikipedia is not MySpace's music page. --Coredesat talk 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as no assertion of notability and obvious vanity. —EdGl 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I made this page as a place to store our biography, because I thought it would fit under the category of bands. After reading the deletion policy more closer, i see my mistakes, and hope I have not annoyed anyone too much! Sorry for my mistake. You may go ahead and delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonica (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 delete. --Ezeu 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bardic Web[edit]

Vanity, advertising, not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suitov (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I have read through the Guide to Deletion and note that it states, "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." The style of article is also comparable to many other articles in the same category, that being Internet_forums. Whilst I do not deny that Bardic Web is not as large as other companies such as Ezboard, for example, it is still perhaps notable for the duration of continuous activity as noted in the statement that "Bardic Web includes within its Scrolls both new and original ideas, as well as communities such as the Cagliostro that are seven years old and counting, which makes them amongst the oldest RP/Writing communities around with continuous activity." Is it possible, therefore, that rather than deletion, this article could instead be proposed for clean-up if fellow Wikipedians deem it necessary? And if this was so, what alterations would they feel would satisfy the requirements of this community?

Silverthorn 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to Silverthorn. WP:WEB is the relevant set of guidelines - if you can provide verifiable evidence that your site is notable (as defined in that article), then it should stay. Tevildo 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real references, not an abundance of unique Google hits. Does not seem WP:WEB. Wickethewok 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History and Development section of the article in question has been updated with references in the hope of answering some of the questions raised in this discussion Silverthorn 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply putting external links to EZBoard and such in an article does not mean it meets WP:WEB. Your website needs to have either won a notable award, been the subject of a decent amount of press, or be distributed through multiple non-trivial sources. So far, I don't see how this subject meets WP:WEB. Wickethewok 17:38, 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 delete. --Ezeu 04:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Foley[edit]

While this person may be noteworthy as the victim of a notorious crime in Canada, the problem is that according to the source article, [55], "Foley" is not the victim's real last name (look at the author notes at the bottom of the article). If we don't know this person's real name, I don't think there should be a WP article. NawlinWiki 18:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons given by nom. We could have an article on the doctor, though. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nom. --Coredesat talk 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: makes absurd claim the doctor "first evaded justice by inserting a vial of a male patient's blood into his arm and thus the DNA samples mismatched", plus articles about notable crimes should probably be under the name of criminal, not the victim, since victims are often ordinary persons with the bad luck to meet a very bad person, who is more interesting by virtue of being exceptionally bad (at least, if the accusations are correct; I know nothing about the disposition of this case). Also, this stub is just plain dreadfully written, and I wouldn't see anything worth saving were it not deletable on other grounds.---CH 05:11, 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. --Ezeu 04:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central_Hotel,_Toronto[edit]

Central Hotel, Toronto

No apparent encyclopaedic value. --Krytan talk 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete. I have to agree that the subject of this article lacks notability, although I cannot approve the manner by which it was nominated, i.e. retaliation for a AfD of one of Krytan's articles. Cortomaltais 18:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete. Same comment. Childish reaction of Krytan but he also happens to be right in this case (in contrast with this). The articles concerning hotels need to be more systematically checked for notability and I encourage anyone interested to look at my notability guidelines for hotels. Pascal.Tesson 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was no retaliation, only the Ritz Carlton was, along with another. I have to admit, the Ritz Carlton was done in bad faith and never will happen again, but I have one thing to say. If something in the article is bothering you, instead of requesting deletion right away, request a rewrite on the talk page so it would be in a better encyclopedia format, instead of deleting the whole thing. --Krytan talk 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I was the one that AfD'ed two of Krytan's articles on hotels, hence my reply here): when I feel that for some article a rewrite won't help, I just ProD or AfD (and when a ProD is removed, I almost always move it to AfD as well). I usually check if the subject of the article has the potential to become a decent Wikipedia article, even if the current one may not fit into it. For those articles (as for my other nominations), I din't think the subject had a sufficient claim to notability to be included here, so I put them in AfD. Still, this gives you and anyone else the chance to have a discussion (normally for some 5 days, I believe) and to convince others that the potential for a good article is there. I haven't seen any evidence that asking for a rewrite instead of putting the two articles on AfD would have done any good. Krytan, I think it's best if you want to discuss this further that you either take it to our user talk pages, or that we have this discussion at the notability guidelines for hotels Pascal has started. Fram 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Fram 14:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you are visiting Toronto, a hotel that charges $140 a week might be preferable to one charging that amount per night. I made some minor improvements to the article, but this is one of my less enthusiastic keep votes. --TruthbringerToronto 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the kind of info you may want from Wikitravel, but not from Wikipedia. Prices and quality of hotels are no reason for inclusion nor exclusion. Fram 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of about 300 million non-notable hotels. Advertisement. KleenupKrew 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just because a hotel costs $140 a week doesn't mean it's notable. In fact, a hotel charging that little per week would make me less likely to stay there. --Coredesat talk 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram's comment above: this is Wikipedia, not Wikitravel. — Haeleth Talk 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic. OSU80 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craftboard[edit]

Non-notable/vanity. Very few hits and appears to be hosted on a free webspace server (not even an independent domain). Site itself states it has less than 350 members. Entry states wikipedia page created by the owner/manager of the website itself. Davril2020 18:45, 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 delete. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't_vote_on_everything[edit]

Inter-wiki soft redirect, confusing to readers who happen to see it. I am not sure if this goes on rfd (because it is not technically a redirect), so I put it here. Inherently POV (it's in the article space, and pages in this namespace must be [[WP:NPOV|NPOV). It would be okay if it was in the Wikipedia namespace, but it is not. Polonium 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't know either if this venue or RFD is more appropriate ... but a cross-wiki redirect to an essay obviously is not appropriate ... so delete. BigDT 12:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Or whatever you do with pages in the wrong namespace. Wickethewok 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. ---CH 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is a self-reference to wikipedia that is not necessary in that form. Related self-reference pages have been speedied in the past and are currently at Deletion review, yet again. Ansell 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rambay[edit]

This article can't be verified. No Google hits. I can't even find an article with "Rambay" and "Nostradamus" together, anywhere. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of nonsense added to Nostradamus by the same IP - DavidWBrooks 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Hoax/OR/incoherent crap. Tevildo 12:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nonsensical hoax. --Coredesat talk 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense, failing WP:HOAX, no citing of sources, etc. etc. --DarkAudit 00:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero google hits, looks like a hoax or nonsense

Brian 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz_Carlton_(Toronto)[edit]

No apparent encyclopaedic value. --Krytan talk 02:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Bad faith admitted by proposer - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Hotel, Toronto. Tevildo 12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep due to admitted bad-faith nom. BoojiBoy 13:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep speedily, or slow WilyD 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect - Though apparently a bad faith nom, single hotels of a chain do not usually merit their own articles. Wickethewok 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Wickethewok. This may have been a bad faith AFD but the article needs to be relisted for AFD anyhow on the grounds of non-notability and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The article itself says this hotel is something planned for the future. My suggestion is close the AFD as bad-faith and immediately relist for AFD. KleenupKrew 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable hotel, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a crystal ball doesn't cover things for which preparations are underway - so it may not apply here. WilyD 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok and Coredesat; let's not be so bound by procedural minutiae as to insist on keeping a bad article just because of the manner in which it was nominated for deletion. — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If and when the hotel is built, it will be a Toronto landmark. --TruthbringerToronto 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Thats blatant crystal-ballism, Truthy. Wickethewok 16:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though this is a bad faith nom, this doesn't seem to meet any possbile inclusion criteris we could apply to it.Inner Earth 11:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anything is to be kept it should be merged with the corporate entity Ritz-Carlton in a section called "Projects". In 2009 when the hotel is complete, then it merits an article. --Paul from Michigan 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be notable when it's built but not before then. Eluchil404 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm 2[edit]

I believe this article qualifies for deletion based upon the "completely idiosyncratic non-topic" reason. It has no redeeming qualities and verges on patent nonsense; I tried checking all the other pages it linked to, to see if I could merge it into one of those pages, but it only links to disambiguation pages and pages which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand (if there is one).
Simba 08:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep and Add Context. Other Robot Wars competitors have their articles (Tornado (robot), for instance.). This particular robot seems no less notable than any of the other winners. Tevildo 12:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. A Robot Wars winner is notable, but this article is in bad need of cleanup. Improve it, and it would be a Strong Keep. --DarkAudit 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up I loved the robot fighting shows. That's not really why I'm voting keep (I'll just go with "per above"), but I wanted to make that known. I liked the robots and the action on BattleBots a lot more, but the show itself (the announcers, the stories, etc.) was crap. -- Kicking222 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, not sourced, very poorly written Joan-of-arc 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst I acknowledge that this article is not good enough for use on Wikipedia as it is, I am organising a group of Wikipedians who are/were Robot Wars enthusiasts to clean up this rather disorganised category from the ground up. Therefore, information within this article could help us when we come to sort out the articles for notable robots. CountdownCrispy 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 05:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoav_Tal[edit]

Self promotion. I live in Israel an I can tell this is non-notable person (you can check it on Google). Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could not find any proof of notability. gidonb 02:49, 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. Proto///type 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi_Atia[edit]

Self promotion. I live in Israel an I can tell this is non-notable person (you can check it on Google). Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems not notable enough yet. gidonb 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as yet. I get 141 Ghits, and beyond the WP mirrors, many of the hits are to a soldier of the same name. Filmmaker whose films have shown at one theater? I was however unable to show any self-promotion. Tychocat 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly NN. Self promotion by Avriri staff. Noon 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and can the closing admin be sure to zap all inbound links to this page. —Xezbeth 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shmila 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - he also appears in the JSFS film school renownd non graduates - [56].Marina T. 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete String of articles created around this mini art exhibit that a few art students(less than 5) participated in. I'm having heck verifying the art is anything special. Nom is probably right to be concerned about this. The person is an indy filmmaker and student, and, in my opinion, does not merit an article. Kevin_b_er 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 05:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slampig[edit]

non-notable neologism, fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles on neologisms Travelbird 12:28, 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gintor[edit]

Article about a closed-down non-notable Warze website/community. Netsnipe 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Seems to be an attempt to re-ignite an inter-board conflict from four years ago. Tevildo 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a historical record of the most prolific and well known warez site of its time period, and was only created due to requests. There are no grounds for deletion as it does not breach any copywrights nor does it encourage or facilitate illegal activities. The board from 4 years ago of which Tevildo speaks no longer exists, infact hostilities were halted and the two communities remained friends after the conflict. --N0 m3RcY 12:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Evidence that it passes WP:WEB is still required. Along with some major copy-editing for spelling and grammar. Tevildo 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To this day gintor.com is remembered as one of the most notable warez sites in the history of the internet, yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it. - just about says it all, really. If it was only known by people who "seeked" it, then presumably no verification of its status as "one of the most notable" can't be, erm, "seeked". No verification, no notability. No notability, no Wiki. Delete. Seb Patrick 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is to say it was known amongst people who used warez sites, similarly a website about birdwatching however prolific, would generally have its userbase limited to birdwatchers.

The statement yet at the same time was known only to people who seeked it is simply a play on words referencing the quote on the main page. Furthermore there are references to Gintor all over the web, more notably to its file format which is referenced on several File Extension databases. If it is deemed not to be worthy of a wiki entry then thats just my opinion vs wiki's and there is nothing i can do or say about that. As for spelling and grammar this will be corrected shortly. --N0 m3RcY 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, original research. Notability neither stated nor implied. I appreciate the article is important to you; this needs to be established in the article itself for other readers. Tychocat 13:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it seems as if it was very notable to the people involved but not to the public in general. Recury 13:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Gintor had many millions of hits and achieved cult status amongst certain circles. It was notable to people who downloaded pirated material... and today people who illegaly download software/media ARE the general public. The question is not whether Gintor is worthy of note but if the history of internet piracy is worthy of note. Believe it or not we, as internet users have a lot to thank internet piracy for. This page was created as a subentry of the warez wiki page. If you know nothing about warez in the given time period then i shouldn't think you would have heard of Gintor, however i assure you many others have. Also please note this is a work in progress. --N0 m3RcY 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • You will need to show some published references to establish notability. That is what I mean when I say the public in general; the New York Times isn't doing stories on you. A few news stories about it on major news websites might suffice, but not forum posts and probably not specialized warez news sites, if such a thing exists. Recury 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your vote doesn't count since it'd be a conflict of interest. Only Wikipedia administrators can vote and you you still haven't demonstrated to them that Gintor passes the WP:WEB test. -- Netsnipe 13:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment. 1. None of us are _voting_. AfDs are not decided by majority opinion. 2. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion here. An admin will close the discussion when a consensus is reached, but admins have no special priveleges on AfD. Just to clarify any mistaken impressions that Netsnipe's post may have given. Tevildo 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*nod* I stand corrected. -- Netsnipe 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not about Gintor.com as much as it is about warez history, and therefore internet history. Considering how high profile software piracy has become, i believe that alone makes Gintor notable enough for a wiki entry. If you doubt its poularity, search for gintor on google and you will find many thousands of forum posts around the internet referencing gintor.com. Furthermore gintor established its own recognised file format which is veryfied upon following the link referenced in the article. If someone could suggest how i could improve the article instead of simply pointing out faults then im sure we can resolve this. Again, please note this is a work in progress that went up just over an hour ago, i am not trying to spam wiki, nor is the article offensive, so please if you think the article can be improved to better meet the wiki guidelines then suggest away --N0 m3RcY 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, this article is about Gintor.com, so Gintor.com has to be notable enough to be verifiable. The only claim to notability I see here, the file format, links to a page with exactly no information about said format. Maybe this could be mentioned in some article about warez or warez groups but there's nothing here to show it merits its own article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the article Isn't about Gintor.com, because i wrote it, and i'm telling you that it isn't.... Gintor was an entity which existed across the website, file format, hub and forums (which as mentioned were seperate). Again, if you have no objection to the subject matter itself you could just as easily suggest how to improve the article as criticise it (if you feel strongly enough about the article to comment). Since this is my first ever wiki article you could show the common courtesy of helping me improve it instead of calling for its deletion before i have even hada chance to work on it. If you are upset that not enough information is given on filext.com then you could direct your grievances at them. --N0 m3RcY 14:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, vanity, and partial attack (albeit only one small section for the latter). --DarkAudit 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • /\ partial attack was not meant as such, but has been fixed. As for vanity, i was simply trying to demonstrate the notability of Ginter within the article, as i was instructed to further up in this discussion. It would help me if people could point out specifically how to improve the article so that it falls in line with the guidelines, as i am a new user i can read the guidelines but dont know to what degree they are enforced... e.g. 'how notable'. I have provided references to gintor from around the web, should i include 'more' references? Because they exist, i simply have not included them because i did not feel they added anything to the article. I am getting the feeling that i am being picked up on technicalities, there is no agenda behind this wiki entry, its simply something i felt was worthy of some sort of record on the net, and i have tried to make it as complete as possible. The criticism i have recieved so far amounts to 'gintor is not worth an article' though i would wager that most of you never heard of it. I figured wikipedia would be the perfect place to publish an article on Gintor, i still would like to persue this but with so much criticism i feel like my efforts have been completely futile, and that wikipedia will indeed delete it regardless of what i do.

Again, if you feel strongly enough about the articles hosted on wikipedia to call for the deletion of said articles despite other people's time and effort, then surely you could lend a hand and make a few constructive suggestions. It is obvious that i am struggling to meet the guidelines. Throw me a bone huh?

thanks to thoes of you who have messaged me with information. 

--N0 m3RcY 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I think there is some evidence of notability here, which I'd like to see worked up. Are there stats on the number of users, rather than volume of downloads? It seems specious to argue it's only famous among a certain group of people. How many people who don't follow lower league English football have heard of the hundreds (thousands?) of lower league English footballers (past and present) that have articles here? --Dweller 16:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Its difficult to find references to gintor.com, since with the death of HTTP most of the sites in the category went down, though it may be possible to find cached toplist sites etc... I am hesitant to base the entire article on proving gintor's noteworthyness, but thanks for the suggestion i will start looking. --N0 m3RcY 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a question of noteworthiness (which is not a policy) as of verifiability. Wikipedia can only keep information which anyone can prove to be true; it doesn't matter how well-known or important something was, if we cannot confirm that the article is accurate, unfortunately we cannot keep it. As you say, it's hard to find sources for dead sites, and unfortunately that means it's hard to meet Wikipedia's policies when writing on them...
Were there perhaps any controversies relating to this site offline? Was it targeted by any anti-piracy campaigns, for example? If you can find anything like that, any mentions in books or newspapers or magazines, then your case will become much stronger. — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the sort of nonsense that gives Wikipedia a bad name.george 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but weak - It needs to be reworded as it sounds a bit nonsensical and also needs to assert more notability, but I am happy with a keep. Benjaminstewart05:-) 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, violates the verifiability policy. All we know about the site is what the editors choose to tell us about it. It even says "(Details may be inaccurate; please change/elaborate as necessary)" which to me is a clear indication that the editors were not working from published sources. It claims "To this day gintor.com is remembered as one of the most notable warez sites in the history of the internet," a very strong claim. If true, it is hard to understand why convincing evidence of that notability is not presented... unless the word "notability" is being used to mean something different from what it usually means. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is/was a http based community, and yet, google gives 81 results and yahoo 241, NO way notable enough to be encyclopediaic information. S33k3r 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not nearly notable enough, article is unsourced. --Coredesat talk 21:24, 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 keep. --Ezeu 05:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Samuelsen and George Harbo[edit]

Comes across as story, should not be in "duo" form. Needs split, deleted, or reworking. 223 google hits, one on google groups. Burgwerworldz 12:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a good question. They are both clearly notable (crossing the Atlantic in 55 days in a rowboat), but the "duo" format does seem strange. I guess we have Leopold and Loeb, although they are most well known by that title. If we split it into two articles it seems like they would be two copies of the same thing though. Remaining Neutral until I hear other's thoughts. --Nscheffey(T/C) 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up. The redirects from the individuals works for me. Since they did this as a team, the one entry seems proper. --DarkAudit 14:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it should be kept, what they did is notable enough. I don't think it shold be split either - this is the only thing they are notable for, and they did it together. It is more of an article on what they did - which is notable, then on their private lives - which are not so notable. So I think it should be kept in this way (but of course the article does need a clean-up).--Konstable 11:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they've got sources, and there are plenty of two-person articles (see Category:Multiple people). Article should be tagged for cleanup, though. Ziggurat 21:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 05:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chappy[edit]

likely hoax/vanity/non-notable, no apparent Google hits but someone with knowledge of Lithuanian and Georgian should double check this Travelbird 12:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same article was created on the French Wikipedia Chappie but was a complete non sense. It's going to be deleted soon. --Stefane 13:10, 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 -- Samir धर्म 03:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aegis Telecom Daily News Letter[edit]

non-notable newsletter, advertisement Travelbird 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seven Ghits for "Aegis Telecom", which is a new low for me. They need to get a webhost. Tychocat 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable advertisement. --Coredesat talk 21:26, 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. Faills WP:CORP Madchester 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waybest Foods[edit]

Non notable small company, only of limited local interest, 29 Google hits Fram 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, advertisement, verified Ghits. Most Ghits were business phone listings or product lines, no independent news stories to establish WP:CORP. Tychocat 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Optimale Gu 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their chicken patties can hardly be distinguished in taste from the carton they come in. They are neither tasty nor notable.george 18:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SM247 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete, Why would an artical about a company that has been around for 50+ years be deleted? I mean it isn't an ad, nor any promotional device. I feel strongly about this company becasue it has helped the local residents of CT who are not able to afford food during times of need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllG73 (talk • contribs)
  • Do NOT Delete, I think this article is valuable to the expansion of wikipedia. Seems legit to me and I've actaully heard of this company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.235.81 (talk • contribs)
  • DONT DELETE, Waybest is actually pretty big in new england and I think this article qualifies under wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.35.46 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Holy sockpuppets, Batman! EllG73 is the creator of the article, and the anons are more than likely sockpuppets. --Coredesat talk 05:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don't Delete" Sockpuppets? Anyways I think the article is a little weak, but I do think it should remain, it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.142.173 (talk • contribs)
This is this user's first contribution... Fram 07:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, this is spam, that says nothing other than this company sells FOOD (you'd think we would already know that by now if we were typing in Waybest FOODS to look it up) Reswobslc 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, fails WP:CORP, advertising. Inner Earth 13:32, 30 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. 6-3, WP:NOT is a policy, WP:BIO is a guideline. Proto///type 16:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various minor league baseball players[edit]

Bubbie Buzachero | Kevin Kouzmanoff | Ryan Goleski | Scott Lewis | Chuck Lofgren | Ben Fishbune | Carl Loadenthal | David Murphy | Sean Smith (baseball player) | Joshua Sowers[edit]

  • Delete for WP is not a indiscriminate collection of facts. No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 13:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure that for athletes they must have either made the major leagues or had other sort of unique circumstances (eg. drafted first overall, other noteworthy event). Wickethewok 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, no you're just guessing. Try reading the policy instead. Chicheley 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all They meet WP:BIO. Chicheley 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BIO, specifically Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league. ScottW 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You might want to also read Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) which proposes that the guideline you gave is "much too vague". The actual standard with regards to minor leaguers has been to delete in cases as clear cut as these articles. -- Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I agree that the guideline, as it is, is too vague, and support changing it to be more appropriate for individual sports. However, I still advocate keeping such articles until the proposal achieves enough consensus to become a guideline. ScottW 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- most minor leaguers aren't even known outside the local area, or even to fans of the parent club unless they're a major prospect or a frequent role player on the major team (Lou Merloni, formerly of the Red Sox organization, comes to mind). Those that are members of independent teams are seldom notable at all. Haikupoet 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all pro athletes, even baseball players. --JJay 02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: http://www.thebaseballcube.com shows 9 different Ryan Smiths, 5 different Matt(hew) Smiths, 5 different Dan/Danny/Daniel Smiths and 4 David Smiths, all of which have played pro baseball but not in the majors. Just to be clear, it's okay if I go ahead and add all 23 of them to Wikipedia now? -- Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If these individuals meet WP:BIO and you want to make the articles and the requisite disambiguation pages, then have at it (avoiding WP:POINT, of course). However, I would prefer to see the notability guidelines changed instead. While I understand that the guideline is not policy and does not necessarily dictate that these players be kept, I am concerned that articles are being nominated without regard to the guideline at all. My preference would be that the guidelines be modified to be more specific about baseball players, and then we deal with the ones who do not meet the consensus. ScottW 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Seems cheesy to claim WP:BIO when that guideline is so weak for athletes that it's spawned a new proposed guideline. These particular articles were nominated for the total lack of notability assertion other than they've played A and AA baseball. Some of them are even very low-round draft picks like Sean Smith (baseball player) who was drafted in the 16th round and took almost four years just to get to AA. -- Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I suspect that if we were discussing changes to the guideline, you and I would have a lot more to agree on. I don't disagree that the guideline needs improvement, and I do want to see it changed; but as weak as it may be, it is just as explicit. ScottW 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all do not meet WP:BIO as it has been applied to baseball in that they did not yet play in MLB. If they do, then they will be notable baseball players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 30 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dudicals[edit]

Neologism, WP:NFT. Deprodded. Accurizer 13:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef. Turns up on Google, so I'm not willing to go with NEO or NFT, but it's still dicdef. Tychocat 13:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - calling it a dicdef is way too generous. Sounds more like a middle-school prank. --Rehcsif 13:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, borderline NEO. Belongs on urbandictionary and, what do you know, it's already there. Fan1967 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe could go in some bizarre list of slang, but not its own article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense,NN, and failing WP:NEO. --DarkAudit 14:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually made up the same word when I was 12, except it was "dudical" and was supposed to be used as an adjective.  :) I don't think either incarnation deserves a wikipedia entry. Amazinglarry 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here as Dicdef. Obviously is in use (see Google), but fails WP:WINAD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs)
  • Well, i've heard the slang usage many time in my high school and it's no prank really. People use it a lot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ienthekorean (talk • contribs)
  • Delete/redirect - Redirect with no merge to "Dude". If I typed in "dudical", I think I would probably want some information relating to dudes. Wickethewok 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a clever word that makes 12 year olds guffaw because it is a combination of DUDE and TESTICLES. Based on other contributions I've seen today, references to the male genitals and things that make 12 year old boys giggle must make up over half of Wikipedia's articles.george 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you mean dudicojones? Fan1967 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleticals "dudical" = (dude + radical)*1987 & it's an adjective. This definition is just wrong & stupid. And whatever "masulanizing" is, I don't wanna know. -- Scientizzle 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, possibly a Wiktionary candidate but not suitable for Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 07:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic-def Eluchil404 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Kimchi.sg. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWIMB[edit]

Vanity article for an Arsenal F.C. message board. Fails the WP:WEB test. Netsnipe 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cack! Page edited and fails nothing but the WIB-LEY-WOB-LEY test. Try again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.183.226 (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 delete. --Ezeu 05:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dance Dance Revolution characters[edit]

Even though I am a DDR player, I don't think this page has encyclopedia value SYSS Mouse 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: You may want to read this thread
  • Delete - agreed --Rehcsif 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep. I also love DDR, and I also think this article is (encyclopedically) worthless. -- Kicking222 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is completely unnecessary. There is no need for a Wikipedia entry outlining the statistics of the dancing characters featured in Dance Dance Revolution. Dj HaQ 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are pretty much no games where a list of its characters would be less relevant. I didn't even know DDR had "characters" (and no thats not a reason to keep it). Wickethewok 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have in earlier arcade releases in Japan and also in some console releases. SYSS Mouse 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HotWings 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a DDR player, I must also agree that this is a worthless article. The DDR characters don't even have any backstory, unlike, say, the beatmania IIDX characters (though they don't really need an article either). --Coredesat talk 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, so we can redirect Fancruft here. I mean, delete. — Haeleth Talk 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. Nice one. - Wickning1 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to have verifiable sources and needs to be distilled to simple core statements of facts (rather than crufty lists of trivia), but the essence of the article is worth keeping. - CNichols 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide etc etc etc Bwithh 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rubbish. +Falcon9x5 19:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. SpamMadchester 04:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook411.com[edit]

Non notable webcompany (60 distinct Google hits, most from promo on forums), advertisement Fram 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As a advertisement for a not particularly notable internet company. Wickethewok 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for a non-notable company (fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB). --Coredesat talk 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it -this is a usefull service that is growing in popularity, it saves students a lot of money, and its buy-back service is truly unique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.108.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. TedTalk/Contributions 01:04, 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. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fight4kids, Inc.[edit]

First AfD closed undecided, but the company clearly does not fulfill WP:CORP nor WP:WEB; its turnover is $1700 in two months according to [57]; Google shows only one independent hit; article has been created by the owner of the page; despite the apparently good purpose of the organization, we should not break the internal rules of WP Ioannes Pragensis 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you, Fan1967. I think that the previous debate was closed too early, without mentioning some important facts, i.e.

  • It is one-man company;
  • Starting in Spring this year;
  • Without media coverage (1 independent hit in Google, not 28 hits as asserted);
  • Extremely small turnover;
  • Nobody asserts notability.

Therefore I decided to revoke the case and try to reach a decision. --Ioannes Pragensis 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a nonprofit organization rather than an investor-owned company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Text from site: "Fight 4 Kids, Inc. is a membership based nonprofit organization designed to provide parents throughout the United States with the convenience of internet-based support. We do this through providing information regarding relevant topics for parents and by presenting our members with opportunities to get involved in online discussion forums and small group coordination." I think that's an assertion of notability. --TruthbringerToronto 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: "Inc." means that this is a privately owned company. The text from the site were indeed sign of notability - if it only were true. Their financial report from June reveals that they had no one single paying member and no sponsors so far.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment Whether the company is non-profit or for-profit or investor-owned is totally irrelevant. Corporations do not have to be for-profit. To be incorporated just means an organization is defining itself legally in certain ways, it does not imply it is necessarily for purposes of profit or commerce. TruthbringerTornto, please see non-profit corporation. Also I don't understand why you think that statement is an assertion of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure that this is a very well-meaning organization, but indications appear to be that it's brand new, barely off the ground, and hardly seems to have attracted any attention at all. It may assert notability, but I don't see that it's achieved any. Fan1967 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Spam, but at least well meaning spam. Seriously though, very small organization ($1700? Most charities lose that much playing craps) thats pretty new. Yet to establish any notable imo. With regards to Truthbringer's arguments, that would be quite a stretch to call that a claim of notability. A company/organization can't be considered noteworthy just because they have a well-meaning goal. Wickethewok 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a non-notable non-profit; promo. KleenupKrew 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:SPAM and WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. How on earth did the first AfD get tagged "no consensus"? Of 10 comments, 7 were in favour of deleting, and one of the remaining "keep" votes was weak. Sure looks like a consensus to me... — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. It is non-notable to date. Maybe later. TedTalk/Contributions 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nonprofit organization rather than an investor-owned company, so WP:CORP doesn't apply. Apparently, the concept of the "non-profit corporation" hasn't reached everyone. In any case, it fails basic notability standards, regardless of the wikilawyering, so delete for now. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 Nonnotable corporation, fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a marketing billboard. Bwithh 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I hope I don't burn in hell for saying so... OSU80 00:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 . Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BookFinder.com[edit]

advertisement, nn. Tychocat 14:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it has a staggering 6.5 million Google hits, but only 63 distinct ones (they all come from bookinder.com and journal.bookfinder.com). So non notable according to Google... Fram 14:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Keep: site seems to be notable in its branche / niche, and has a lot of news reports and so on. Fram 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been reported before that the "distinct" hits returned by Google are only filtered from the first 1000 entries, so when the total is significantly larger, the distinct hits are not accurate. Fan1967 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, thanks. Changed vote accordingly! Fram 14:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page has been in place since 2003, and doesn't read like an advertisment to me. Quite useful info.--MichaelMaggs 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be mentioned on a decent enough number of independent external sites to pass WP:WEB
  • Keep but clean up, as this article reads like an ad to me. The website is notable, though. --Coredesat talk 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep google searches have to be done carefully due to several companies with the same name across the world. It has a few reviews, including PCMag, and financial references when it was sold. I was convinced by the brief they submitted to the US Patent Office here.TedTalk/Contributions 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets standards. As an aside, one of the single most useful used book hunting tools on the web, I love it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 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. --Ezeu 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebPaws.com[edit]

This appears to be wholly non notable. A local web design firm that is simply showcasing its work here and using WP as an advert. Cute name. Gave me paws for thought. But a cute name does not mean it makes the cut Fiddle Faddle 14:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 15:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purr nom. NawlinWiki 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just advertising Optimale Gu 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 21:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:WEB. TedTalk/Contributions 01:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A whole raft of new "external references" have ben added to the site. As far as I can see they are links to all the various linkfarms that webmasters use for search engine optimisation, and that search engines probably ignore. In many ways this proves that the article's creator is just using WP as a link farm. Fiddle Faddle 06:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the author of this article and have been revising it according to your inputs. It is unclear to me how this article fails WP:ADS and WP:WEB. I've referenced products that the company has developed and have cited an article from the Boston Globe which lists the company in its efforts to support a local humane society. I aslo have recently added additional external links to increase the company's credibility, but Fiddle Faddle's comments are well taken and I will delete the non-trivial references. Any further input would greatly be appreciated. Thank you. --Wolf 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have dropped a note on this to User talk:Wolf grey which others also might like to add to to assist the efforts in making the article potentially keepable. The essence is that wikipedia needs "heavyweight" external "stuff" to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the American Association of Webmasters and the 2005 award may be just sufficient to assert notability. I will have a further look at these and revise my nomination if I feel they make enough of a case Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Design Firms award appears to be an award which causes people to click to their (Designfirms) website and see 4 google adsense adverts. I am discounting that award as simply an award to make money for designfirms (that was 2005). The AA of W award (2006) has more substance in but it is also a direct moneyspinner for AA of W with banner adverts, so I regret I am discounting that as well. I wish I saw enough here to change my mind. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 05:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mayberry[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Lists no works, can't successfully search for this name and any of the artists he has been "linked with". Lists "NONE" for record labels; what producer lists no record labels? Mikeblas 14:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neither the article nor Google show notability to satisfy WP:MUSIC Optimale Gu 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't jumpstart your career by listing yourself first in an encyclopedia and then doing something notable. How can we trust Mr. Mayberry to follow through and achieve notability. Indeed, we suspect that he won't. george 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If he has indeed remixed Nine Inch Nails and the others listed, it was certainly not at their request. Bedroom producers (such as myself) are not necessarily notable. Wickethewok 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, become notable first, the Wikipedia article comes later. --Coredesat talk 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (failing WP:MUSIC). Editor has had a month to establish notability, which is enough time. TedTalk/Contributions 01:25, 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. --Ezeu 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Design firms in America[edit]

Not a sensible/notable list. Thsi will encoruage advertorial and linkspam. Only one firm on it has any notability, one is already AfD, the other will be shortly. If this were a list of notable design firms I'd withdraw my nomination like a shot. But how could it ever work? Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ad magnet. List created by one nn design firm, since edited by others. Fan1967 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Optimale Gu 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, weak because I would like to see a list like this myself. But delete because it needs a good criteria for listing. I wouldn't mind the article getting salvaged but there's not much to salvage. hateless 17:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk 21:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TedTalk/Contributions 01:26, 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. --Ezeu 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welder/Fitter[edit]

Definitions. We have already welder and fitter.--Dangherous 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if anything is actually useful it could be merged, but it hardly looks worth it. Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No merge. No useful information that doesn't already exist. Wickethewok 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it's somebody playing around. SilkTork 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 06:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jetscram[edit]

Non notable design company. Thsi is just an advert Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advert of nn company Optimale Gu 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn company article with little content that reads like an ad. -Fsotrain09 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If your new company is so desperate for work that you need to list it in Wikipedia, then it is not likely to ever become notable.george 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for non-notable company. --Coredesat talk 21:39, 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. Punkmorten 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TUNES[edit]

Hardly notable inactive programming project (2003) [58]. Old 2004 AFD apparently on Talk:TUNES. -- Omniplex 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, Delete. Lewispb 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. —Quarl (talk) 2006-06-22 08:03Z
  • Weak Keep It's an interesting subject, if the article was expanded it could become very informative. --Mincetro 12:50, 22 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, - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Unfulfilled crystal ball and just too short to be informative. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I think, it is fairly non-notable but I cant be sure. The description and website don't really give much clue as to what it is all about (apart from reams of obfustication) so unless someone can come in and rewrite it adding a full description / explanation in leymans terms then I suppose it has to go :D -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 14:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could have been notable (if I could figure out what it was supposed to be) but, per the linked page, there's been no activity in years. Fan1967 15:06, 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. --Ezeu 06:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Cyber-Rap[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, it seems. He doesn't have a full-length record yet. Can't find him on All Music. Searhcing the web gets only 35 matches. Mikeblas 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete, the artist is a myspace success, released a popular independent EP in summer 2005 and has a full-length record being released on July 11, 2006. --electrolite41 talk 12:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT delete, the artist has a large Canadian following, is a known staple of Toronto's indie music and comedy scene, and has an LP with many popular guest artists from Canada. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.93.193.138 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, his label's homepage is the same as his myspace page, and WP:NOT a crystal ball, anyway. No albums, no source for the popularity of his songs, no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Mangojuicetalk 13:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. OSU80 00:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 06:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podiatry 7 News[edit]

Advertisement Ladybirdintheuk 14:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The advert is for a non notable forum, it seems. Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant self promo. Wickethewok 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition I can find no evidence of notability. DrunkenSmurf 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement for non-notable forum. --Coredesat talk 21:41, 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. --Ezeu 06:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Kent[edit]

Music production company self-promotion on Wikipedia. Note the sole contributor's name User:Jinglemaker and that this article is their only contribution to Wikipedia. Netsnipe 14:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and their website appears not to work in firefox! For that grievous sin alone..... Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it claims to be one of the leaders in the field of Music Imaging [59] but Google basically just finds 1000+ entries in directories and business listings for this key phrase and "Foster Kent" Optimale Gu 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant self-promotion of non-notable company. --Coredesat talk 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - already speedied once Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trik Kwestion[edit]

Non-notable band, the "hit" song in "Kwestion" draws no Google hits. To answer the "Trik Kwestion", delete Wildthing61476 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there such a vote as "weak speedy delete"? It's incredibly obvious that they don't meet WP:BAND whatsoever, and the article only barely asserts notability, so I don't know if {{db-band}} would apply. Either way, the ludicrously obvious vote is delete, although I think, had I seen this article before Wildthing, I would've just tagged it for speedy. -- Kicking222 16:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - No claims of notability in my opinion. Wickethewok 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I can find nothing for any band members or this band on a google search. The article makes no claims of notability. DrunkenSmurf 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk 21:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Coredesat. --Richhoncho 21:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, and fact that most other Big Brother series' have successful articles like this one, which is still in progress until the series ends. — FireFox 18:11, 27 June '06

Big Brother Australia series 6[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This article is noncompliant to Wikipedia content policy based on:

  • WP:CSD#A7 - Unremarkable people and vanity pages which do not assert the importance or significance of the subject.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is helplessly non-encyclopedic, please refer to the discussion, consensus, etc.
  • WP:BIO - None of the people mentioned in this article have any historic significance.
  • WP:NOT - This web site being built on WP looks more like an advertisment for the show than anything one might see on television itself (in one frame).
  • WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of lists of times of unremarkable people doing unremarkable things in a house one night until the next day when all of tense needs to be edited again because it was written in current or the future tense in such a hurry that all the run on sentences say is and are and was and will, but nobody has a clue which tense is/was/will supposed to be corrected because only one guy watches the show.

If only completed programs were considered facts, then the only people writing about them would be the people interested.

and therefore serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep probably needs cleanup, but an article about a specific season of a popular show, especially a reality show with a changing cast, is pretty standard. --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to:[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per WP:POINT.--Nscheffey(T/C) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review I think this AfD nomination might be bad faith. The article's talk page shows that User:Ste4k has been involved in all manner of arguments over the tense of the page, reliable sources, etc, for a week, and now he puts the page up for deletion? Could this be an edit war gone nuclear? --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He did actually say he was considering nominating the article for deletion; but I didn't think he would actually do it. --JDtalkemail 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you haven't believed or listened to a single thing I've had to say since I started working on the project, and I object to your insistance on referring to peoples' gender incorrectly. I spent hours cleaning up per policy and I refuse to participate in revert wars. There is nothing wrong with putting up an article for review by its peers. And it is clear to me that you prefer the vanity of the article rather than its encyclopedic value. Removing tags for maintenance is a manner of keeping other editors from joining it. The only possible reason you could have for reverting maintenance tags which were placed in good faith is to protect the aesthetic value of a yet to complete web page. I purposely call the entry a web page rather than an article for one specific reason. This is an article. And this is a disgrace. The content belongs in a transwiki project that may or may not exist. But it certainly isn't encyclopedic, cannot pass any of those policies listed above, and in my serious opinion is that it's a candidate for speedy delete based on item one. The amount of time that one wastes creating an aesthetically pleasing list of unnotable people hasn't anything to do with the reason that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ste4k 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tense decision was decided by consensus of the people working on the project and can be noted in green. The overall outcome of that decision was to have an encyclopedic tense. (past) Ste4k 17:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're being very hypocritical. The tense was agreed upon, but the closer made quite clear that things that will never change, relationships being an example, should be written in present tense. Despite this, you still went ahead and changed everything into past tense again. If you really want to be the guy that trys to put me down by making me look like a fool and the person that wants only what he wants, go ahead. But I will always tell the facts, as they are.
And as for the BB01 article, I've already told you; that article was made earlier this year. You can't possibly expect perfect information for a television series that happened 5 years ago; especially when there's next to no chance of re-runs. --JDtalkemail 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to confirm my fears. AfD is not for "putting up an article for review by its peers." That's what Wikipedia:RFC and Wikipedia:Requests for feedback are for. As far as I can tell there is no way this AfD nom will pass. If you nominated for deletion knowing this then it is certainly bad faith. If you were genuinely confused as to the purpose of AfD then I understand and apologize. Otherwise I think this is a purposeful waste of time by a person with a very small minority agenda. --Nscheffey(T/C) 17:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't put up a single Big Brother article up, and leave all the others. That is just not right. There's loads more articles about previous and present Big Brother shows, why don't you go around nominating them all for nominations as well? I'm sure Big Brother UK series 7 would interest you. There's nothing wrong with this article, it's no different to the current UK Big Brother article. The people are the subject. The article doesn't use POV. If these people have no historic significance, then again, look at all the other Big Brother articles. --JDtalkemail 15:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent, though I would support a merging of the different seasons into one big article, too. 23skidoo 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous seasons were all part of the BBAU article, but somewhere along the line they were all split up. --JDtalkemail 16:04, 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. --Ezeu 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faceo[edit]

Blatant advertising for a facility management company. Text appears like a copy/paste from a promotional brochure. Not surpisingly, the contributor's username is User:Faceo. Conflict of interest anyone? Netsnipe 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The corporation has notability. But this article is pure advert and should go. NPOV it is not. Advertorial it is. What they ought to do is fire their PR agency for that one! Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from the obvious advertisement tone of the article, I don't actually see notability for the company as per WP:CORP. Can't find any independent articles about the company, and not on the Forbes Global 2000. --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not arguing for the article to be kept - it's an awful article and a rehash of some datasheets, but Hoovers free fact sheet shows that Faceo was created from two notable parent corporations. While that does not make it inherently notable itself, it is likely that sufficient notability is asserted. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmmm...User:Faceo just spam-linked Facility management. Reverted and warned, but still no response to the AfD or User_Talk. -- Netsnipe 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this isn't the right article for this corporation. The creator isn't really helping his case, either. --Coredesat talk 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I am in charge of PR within Faceo. We thought that it could be interesting for Wikipedia users to know of Faceo, a company created only six years ago, and which is one of the few players in our field to have a presence across several countries in Europe. Our intention was to be informative, and not to advertise; if you read our article, we put some facts on our company and gave some definition on what the terms mean. You may not share our viewpoint, but we did not put the same information as in our website: www.faceo.com. Frankly I wonder how we should speak about ourselves in a more "neutral" tone. Regards,Amaury de Varax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.24.36 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Thanks for the disclosing your relation with Faceo, though it does pose a significant conflict of interest problem. Wikipedia policy frowns heavily on individuals/organisations writing about themselves and for good reason. For example, your current article sounds too much like an advertisment since there are too many biased first-person statements such as "Faceo’s expertise in the management of soft services allows our customers to optimize cost reductions within a building." This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for self-promotion. Netsnipe 10:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:We take good note of your comments. Leave us a few days to take your comments into account.We will rewrite the content of the document accordingly. G.Frediani
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my actual god[edit]

I get about 93 hits on Google for this protologism, far short of sufficient to establish notability Daniel Case 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How could the fact that it's offensive be in ANY way relevant to this discussion? Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like that fact, stop editing. NOW. 205.188.116.138 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collective enterprise which determines, by consensus, both what is notable and what is appropriate. If you don't think there is censorship in Wikipedia already then you should try posting anything on a conservative topic. Wikipedia is and will be censored. george 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

94 actually, why not have it on wiki, I know more than 100 people who say it frequently, you probably know none.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunhodge (talk • contribs)

Comment: (insert snow owl here) hateless 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism, sources need to be verifiable, "I know people who say it" is not verifiable. NawlinWiki 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this doesn't belong in wikipedia. I know lots of people who say Oh my dear lord, Son of a beesting and Holy shnikes but none of these merit an article. --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Then maybe we can hear someone say it. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Funny, but I've never heard anyone use it. --DarkAudit 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This saying raises troubling theological questions that could get Wikipedia into (even more) trouble with the Almighty. george 19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless this has been written up in some reliable source outside Wikipedia, this isn't encyclopedic. --Elkman 19:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very, very, very, very stupid. Danny Lilithborne 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord! Delete, nonsense, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TedTalk/Contributions 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong actual delete per above. SM247 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. "This phrase is not slang for anything". So...um... it's just words then? --DaveG12345 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually really in fact delete - blasphemy is neither here nor there. There's no entry for the vast majority of common phrases in English, nor should there be. This clumsy neologism doesn't deserve one either. AlexTiefling 12:18, 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 06:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviator Sports and Recreation[edit]

This is created by a new user and seems advert-like, POV, and NN, although it doesn't seem to fit into any of the WP:CSD. {{advert}} tag was removed. --ais523 15:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Posted by the article's creator This article was not intended as an advert. Please advise as to what is making it appear that way so that it can be revised. --69.38.167.162 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article seems to contain language (e.g. 'state-of-the-art') that is more common in a company brochure than in an encyclopaedia article. It is also structured in an unusual manner. Most of all, though, it seems to consist of statements that the company might make, as opposed to statements that other people might make discussing or describing the company. Relevant policies and guidelines are WP:SPAM, WP:NN, and WP:NPOV. --ais523 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The information on aviator sports which is a renewal project of a national historic site is quite informative and useful. It does however contain some information that appears to be promotional which should be corrected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.188.55 (talk • contribs)

Comment User has no other edits. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public projects are of interesst to the community— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hturko (talk • contribs)

  • This project is of public interest and pass WP:NN; it has been listed in Cranes New York Business periodicle the week of 2/27/06, The Sports Business Daily on 5/3/06, on NY1 Broadcast News, and in the New York Daily Online publication.--rdt 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This project is not WP:SPAM as there are no external references made anywhere else on Wikipedia other than on this article that refer to corporate websites dealing with this project.--rdt 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not a member, but frequent user of wikipedia, I find the aviator sports article to be very enlightening. As a new Yorker I find public projects to be of interest and I found this article to be very informative not only about its self but also with regards to the information that it gives on Floyd Bennet Field and the National Parks service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.168.146 (talk • contribs)
  • As the original author of this article, I welcome other people to research this interesting public/private project and contribute to this article. I feel that it is a very important public relationship and resource that people should be aware of and I will make whatever edits that other contributors to this site deem necessary to keep this article up in this unbiased informative domain.--rdt 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments about this being Spam are erroneous! Similar articles appear throughout Wikipedia about private rather than public projects e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_square_garden and others. Aviator Sports is a National Park Service / private industry joint venture that is of great interest to both the local community and the nation. The article is informative and clearly belongs in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. If there are specific issues that make it appear commercial the reader should exercise the editor’s pen rather than flag it for deletion, time better spent by all. Encourage good contributions and help new contributors rather then put up a wall against contributions. --Henry 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & change tag to Cleanup. It is an article about a sports venue. The principle of articles on sports venues is well established. As is the principle of articles on events or buildings not yet complete. The objection is to the style of the writing. The tag therefore should be Cleanup rather than Delete. SilkTork 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Carradine[edit]

Delete way too minor character. No redirect value, either. Funniest deprod ever: deprod notable actor starring in such films as "Kill Bill". Oy vey!- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. No objection to minor characters etc if enough verifiable information can be provided, but I am skeptical whether there is enough information for an article. David L Rattigan 16:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced (nothing on Google, credits for the film "Spider-Man" list Uncle Ben's killer as simply "Carjacker"). If there were a source, I would keep it as interesting Spider-Man trivia. NawlinWiki 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extremely minor character with no source. --Coredesat talk 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confused nonsense: looks like the creator is confusing an actor and his character from one movie with a character from a different movie. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. his role in Kill Bill was viewed to the delight of all by millions of fans of Quentin Tarantion. --15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.163.178 (talk • contribs)

    • Striking this user's vote as vandalism. David Carradine, obviously, is the actor from Kill Bill. I vote speedy delete as nonsense. Parsssseltongue 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In light of the above information, I vote Delete- this has all been a terrible case of a mistaken identity! I would hardly call my vote vandalism, though! --64.132.163.178 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. :) You should get an account and a userpage, though. People don't look at contributions from anonymous IPs very favorably (right or wrong, that's how it is). Parsssseltongue 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:52, 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 Keep. Avi 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michabo[edit]

NN god Computerjoe's talk 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This god is notable if you are an algonquin indian. It has a crater on Io named after it. What more notability does one need than a crater? Seriously, this god may not be notable to many people expressing an opinion here, but it has notability asserted sufficient to be kept. Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article says Michabo was a principal deity of the Algonquins. That sounds notable to me. Unlikely to get much Google play, but that shouldn't be the test here. NawlinWiki 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Haha, I never thought I'd see "NN god". Anyways, I would vote keep if reliable sources are presented. Wickethewok 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per Fiddle Faddle. --Coredesat talk 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were a made-up minor god from, say, a Terry Pratchett book (you know what I mean when I say "made-up", okay?), then deletion would be appropriate, but as it's a "real" god (you know what I mean, okay?), then keep. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If he's notable enough to have a crater named after him, he should be notable enough for Wikipedia. (IMO, it's cases like these why notability isn't and shouldn't be an inflexible policy. Michabo isn't that notable in the great scheme of things but an article about him would still be expected in a complete encyclopedia). Eluchil404 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, encyclopedic entry. Seems to be easily verifiable from any number of sources, so I don't think that's the question. I'm not sure if we need to get into "what is a notable historical diety?". Kuru talk 20:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Deleted at the request of the author.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iseult Gonne[edit]

I am the creator of this entry. I feel it's more suitable for WP that this entry's information be presented within the entries for Yeats and Gonne rather than independently. SnarkBoojum 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need to nominate it here. As the only author you may request its deletion by putting {{db-author}} at the top of the page. The article will be removed quickly. Fan1967 15:39, 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. --Ezeu 06:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Terror Abode[edit]

No evidence this is a real movie, either on imdb or google. When created as The Terror Mansion, was deleted. Yamla 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced, not on google, not on IMDB, not on director's IMDB page. Will change my "vote"AfdIsNotAVote(TM) in a hurry if someone scares up some verifiable reliable sources. Weregerbil 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-G4 - re-creation of deleted material. It appears to be the exact same movie, but with a different title. Otherwise unverifiable, unsourced, and not on IMDB. --Coredesat talk 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and spank ATL Boi's little bottom. SilkTork 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, absolutely. Obviously not everything in the article is POV, and to the extent we do find POV there, on which issue I disclaim opinion, an AfD is not the proper remedy. Your citation from WP:AFD is contrived and inapplicable. This nomination is very misguided at best, and to continue this discussion would be counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimmi[edit]

Blatant NPOV violations. Article is almost entirely produced using views of controversial authors such as Bat Ye'or. WP:NPOV policy on not giving undue weight to a certain perspective goes totally ignored in this article. Much of the article lists 'facts' that are supported by the writings of Bat Ye'or, a highly controversial writer who has been critisized often for being more of a polemic than a scholar (see talk page on Dhimmi). There is very little, if any, trust between editors, with all sides pushing their own view on the subject. His Excellency... 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for deletion: From WP:AFD : All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace.

The reason for which this article is a prime candidate for deletion from WP main namespace is primarily the first one, NPOV. WP:NPOV lists various rules in regards to keeping articles fair and objective. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation makes the distinction between a 'fact' and an opinion. A statement can be termed a fact if no serious dispute exists as to its truth. The entirety of this article presumes the views of highly controversial writers as being facts. An account from Stillman's or Bat Ye'or's book regarding a historic occurance that could be percieved as oppressive (say, restrictions on clothing or inability to bear weaponry), that has been seen to have occured at any point in history, is reproduced as fact and as a generic trait of the Dhimmi system, followed by the citation link.

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight speaks to the need to give a balanced account of all significant sides on the topic. This article is entirely based on the perspective of several orientalists. An overwhelmingly large proportion of the article is founded on Bat Ye'or's works. Bat Ye'or's credibility as a scholar has been critisized by other, more reknowned, scholarship (Bernard Lewis, for example). She has been critisized for her polemic tone and selective gathering of sources for her work. She has also been critisized for her lack of academic training in the subject she speaks and writes so frequently about. She is an activist.

Other points soon to follow.

All other means to correct this problem have been exausted (read talk page) His Excellency... 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree unless a lot of goodwill and hard work goes into clearing it up. I can see the problems but wouldn't be able to contribute much to the solution. Itsmejudith 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appears to be an important concept in Islam. NPOV problems are not inherent in the article subject, and should be sorted out through means other than AfD. David L Rattigan 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS. Don't wish to infuriate anyone who already has exhausted their patience trying other ways of saving the article. David L Rattigan 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David L. Rattigan above. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per David L Rattigan. Undeniably a notable topic, and controversy is not grounds for deletion. The solution to such problems is for both sides to work towards a mutually acceptable compromise, not to delete the article altogether. Tevildo 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually according to WP:AFD, NPOV violation (and this article hosts a particularly flagrant one) is the first listed reasonable cause for deletion. His Excellency...
  • Strong Keep This article is important factual information that is under constant attack to remove it from wikipedia, this AFD is just the latest escalation of this. This attidude of warfare is really only held by a few editors on both sides, others like Aminz and Merzbow have worked hard to try and make this a good article.Hypnosadist 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete For reasons I've explained. His Excellency... 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, is the nominator allowed to list a separate "vote"? David L Rattigan 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why wouldn't he be? Don't presidential candidates visit the ballot box? His Excellency... 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because nomination is your vote Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like Fiddle Faddle said. I've just never seen a nominator post a separate vote before, so it doesn't seem to be the convention. And if it isn't the convention, I'd say it's misleading, since it will be interpreted as a second vote for deletion after the nominator's. Anyway, I'm sure someone knows the official policy on this. David L Rattigan 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • When votes are counted at the end, how often is the nomination counted as a vote? Never. If there's a rule that suggests nominators of an AFD forego their right to vote, I've never heard of it. His Excellency... 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps the word "vote" is misleading. As we are reminded so often this is not a ballot. It is an expression of an opinion backed by facts. The community judges the facts. I have a strong suspicion that "the greater the rhetoric the less valid the point", but that is a wholly personal view. Expressions of anger or bewilderment do nothing here. Hard and attributabel facts are the things which carry weight. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is notable. The topic is notable. It has a place here. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DR.--Rockero 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important subject, any POV issues should be fixed. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just separate practize from ideology and this article will be just fine. Intangible 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'My request: Votes are being filed on impulse rather than actual observation. Please actually read the article and the dispute on the talk page before giving your vote. The notability of the topic is not in question. WP:AFD recognizes that ALL articles must be subject to the policy of NPOV. There is absolutely no possibility of Dhimmi reflecting an NPOV. Take the time to study the article before voting. His Excellency... 16:51, 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 speedy delete. Roy A.A. 22:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy testicle tuesday[edit]

Probable hoax Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as hoax. It's a line from the movie, Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. I doubt the "ancient cathars" played with the alliteration of "Tuesday" in naming their holyday. Agent 86 15:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, it's the use of the word "Tuesday" by the Cathars I doubt, not the Cathars themselves. If this were a real concept, I'm sure the article would have given the Cathar name for this, uhm, event. Agent 86 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. David L Rattigan 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word Tuesday is irrelevant. Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday are all ancient celebrations and would not have originally used the modern English versions of day names. Keep that in mind - bongo! --Maxbobmax 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense and per WP:HOAX. --DarkAudit 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I'll keep that in mind, Maxbobmax, as I politely ask you to not purposely add nonsense to Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, great balls of nonsense. NawlinWiki 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious hoax.--Isotope23 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax. Benjaminstewart05:-) 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete bollocks. (Heh heh heh...) --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMDB shows that it's a quote from the movie, not a real celebration. (Unless Jim Carey knows something about Cathar festivals, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't.) If there's a reliable source, I'll change my mind, but I guarantee there's no reliable source. --Elkman 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent nonsense, stupid, stupid, and stupid. Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense, fails WP:BALLS. Tagged with {{db-nonsense}}. --Coredesat talk 21:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT FOOLS! This article has nothing to do with Star Trek and therefore none of you are competent to pass judgement. You've spent more time on your crappy markup than you have doing research. Sloppy and foolish my winged friends! --Maxbobmax 22:05, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electropropulsion[edit]

Originally tagged with {{prod}} with the reason, "Original Research and is not neutral point of view". It was later tagged with a {{prod2}} by another editor. While this might be a real term (314 ghits[60]), this article does not appear to be about the real thing. It's a soapbox for an opinion. Agent 86 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible speedy as patent nonsense and blatant hoax. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this mod used on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-gravitic_propulsion In pseudophysics, electro-gravitic propulsion refers to claims made at certain websites regarding supposed devices And I did say speculation, a valid genre at Borders, which covers pseudophysics if you will. Is pseudophysics good enough for your approval. And speculation is used throughout.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslafieldmachine (talk • contribs) The first paragraph now reads: Electropropulsion, in pseudophysics, refers to claims made at certain websites regarding supposed devices which could be used to drive a spacecraft. Some websites which promulgate these claims sometimes include the additional claims that UFOs are alien spacecraft and are operated by such alleged devices. It is claimed to be sought at the turn of the twentieth century by Tesla.(1) I hereby speculate that it does exist, just as the anti-gravity speculation does, without seeing proof. The following is speculation with a bit of electrical physics.

Its a hoax that Tesla's patents are clues to his solid aether device as speculators have suggested then I will remove that part and fix up the rest.

  • Delete, hoax, borderline patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:OR, at the very least. Tevildo 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like cut and paste. Artw 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ufo+propulsion&go=Go try that, a search for ufo propulsion.... might I say the same for each one, is it alien anti-gravity vs. Tesla's solid aether... identified in referenced source. Which do you like, I will say nonsense to your favorite ufo propulsion... Teslafieldmachine 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax that the patents are clues might be true, but parts in the patents might be parts in a high frequency high voltage unknown devise because the what he mostly deals with. It would be wrong to say you could find the specific device or what you are pointing out. I did not think that came across, it is not the intent. I did not say build a ufo propulsion from Tesla's patents. Only that they might be use or might hold clues. That flat coil always botheres me, why make a coil like that. Teslafieldmachine 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the beef boys, you just can't come along and say delete. I am not funning with this post, did you read the sources. Its not nonsense and Tesla's patents stand.. Wikipedia will not delete something real. Teslafieldmachine 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Teslafieldmachine. The main grounds for our opinion that this article should be deleted is that it constitutes Original Research. As you say yourself, it's your own speculation about a possible method of UFO propulsion. There are plenty of sites which will be more than happy to publish your article, but Wikipedia is, or should be, restricted to verifiable facts from secondary sources - your article is a primary source, and therefore not acceptable here. This isn't a reflection on you personally or on the subject matter of the article. Tevildo 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation, no it was all reference (1). It would be psudo at any stretch of the imagination. I went too far in explaining the ideas in (1) so that it went astray of what might be a three liner like electro-gravity was. I see that, I leave it to posters more experienced with Wikipedia policies and format. Thanks for your concern. Teslafieldmachine 13:35, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rigantona[edit]

Appears to be vanity. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I wish we had more sources, but I don't think this group is going to be showing up on Google or the Billboard Hot 100 even if they are notable in their field, as the article implies. NawlinWiki 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real press coverage or any claims to meet WP:BAND that I see. Even if their genre isn't the most popular, some sort of music journal would have an article on them if they were indeed notable. No objection to having this if there are some reliable sources presented claiming this. Wickethewok 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity. --Coredesat talk 22:02, 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. --Ezeu 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of law schools in Canada[edit]

Listing per consensus at Education WikiProject. Maintaining this list is error-prone, and archaic, and stale. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, this is duplicated by Category:Law schools in Canada. Ardenn 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although given the number of law schools in Canada and how easy it is to verify, I don’t see how maintaining it would be “error prone”. Lists are not encyclopedic unless they are a necessary part of an article (to better explain or describe the significance of the article or to contribute to a greater understanding of the article). If including such a list in the article itself would make the article itself unwieldy, then creating a separate "article" for the list is fine. In this case, the list simply duplicates the function of a category that already exists. This list does not do anything to help better understand the main subject matter or the significance of the subject. As it serves no such purpose, I consider it listcruft. Just because Wikipedia is not paper does not mean it is a place for trivia or indiscriminate lists of things, per WP:NOT and WP:5P. Agent 86 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep plenty here that's more than a list; can easily be useful for prospective law students. Very notable topic. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the category is fine. --Coredesat talk 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists and categories are seperate entities which do different jobs. The fact you have a category to my mind makes a list all the more neccessary. Jcuk 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list justified its existence by being more than just a collection of links. I cleaned up and made this more evident by moving some prose to the top and some to individual schools, and sectioning the list by type of degree based on the data already in the list. GRBerry 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A completely valid list. Chicheley 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep perfectly valid list, easy to ascertain, all are notable. SM247 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The notability of the items on the list is not in question. The usefulness of the list is. --Coredesat talk 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above, a valid list. Yamaguchi先生 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this valid, verifiable, maintainable and useful list. Silensor 22:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people keep saying they maintain these lists, but who actually does? As soon as the author loses interest, they're worthless. --Bombycil 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm pretty sure degree-awarding law schools don't just start up overnight. SM247My Talk 23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list contains useful general information that cannot be conveyed through a category. The contents of the list are quite static, so I can't really understand the comments that have been made about the list being "error prone" or hard to maintain. --Skeezix1000 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 clear consensus. --Ezeu 06:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of business schools in Canada[edit]

Listing per consensus at Education WikiProject. Maintaining this list is error-prone, and archaic, and stale. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, this is duplicated by Category:Business schools in Canada. Ardenn 17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasons for deletion of List of law schools in Canada, above. Agent 86 17:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the category is fine. --Coredesat talk 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per my reasons in the article above. Jcuk 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing more than listcruft. The category does this better by not needing human maintenance of a separate article. GRBerry 01:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Assuming these issue some sort of standard accreditation or degree (I am not familiar with Canadian tertiary education), information is readily available and they are notable. SM247 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The notability of the items on the list is not in question. --Coredesat talk 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categorise. -- GWO
  • Comment. If the list is deleted, the few red links should be first converted to a stub. With that done, you could argue that this article is a duplicate of the category. But for now it is not a duplicate. Vegaswikian 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list cruft for sure. --Bombycil 04:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep for now, agree wih Vegaswikian's above comment. Automatically convert my vote into Delete when if is done. --WinHunter (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is useful not listcruft and not a category duplicate Yuckfoo 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 due to lack of context. Roy A.A. 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bijaya Jena[edit]

Asserts no notability at all. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Even when the content is there the guy doesn't look as if notability will be established. BlueValour 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, placing {{db-bio}} on page. hateless 19:21, 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. --Ezeu 06:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subjugation[edit]

Delete - dicdef Mais oui! 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Untrue. The article is not a dictionary article about a word or phrase. It is a stub encyclopaedia article about the concept of subjugation. Please do not conflate stub encyclopaedia article and dictionary article. The two are very different things. Uncle G 16:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki. Reads like a dic-def to me. If it were converted into an article, I might reconsider. Agent 86 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It already is an article. It is a stub. Your idea of what constitutes a dictionary definition is erroneous. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef with a bunch of what appear to be randomly selected external links (17th century French literature, the Hungarian uprising, and slasher flicks?). Fan1967 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept of subjugation is a broad one. The further reading implies that there's a lot to write on the subject, because people already have written a lot on the subject. You would delete an encyclopaedia article because it's a stub with clear potential for expansion? Please refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The problem articles are stubs that have no potential for expansion. Uncle G 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a stub of an encyclopedia article. It is a stub of a dictionary definition. If you believe there is potential for an encyclopedic article, I suggest you try expanding it with something besides links. Fan1967 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. It is a stub encyclopaedia article. Your idea of what constitutes a dictionary definition is erroneous. You also need to familiarize yourself with the idea of cooperative editing. An article does not need to be written all in one go, and it is not necessary for one editor to write the entire article from start to finish too, no matter what you may demand to the contrary. If you want the article expanded, be bold and expand it yourself. I've started you off with a few sources that you can work from. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --Coredesat talk 22:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef per above. SM247 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far too many editors appear to have the wrong idea of what constitutes a "dicdef". An article is not a dictionary article simply because it is short. (Indeed, many dictionary articles are rather long. I recommend editors that think that dictionary articles are short go and read some of the non-stub articles in Wiktionary.) A dictionary article is an article about a word or a phrase. It provides meanings, translations, quotations, etymologies, usage notes, pronunciations, inflections, synonyms, antonyms, and cross-references. An encyclopaedia article is about a person/place/concept/event/thing. Please read our articles on encyclopaedic dictionary and the use-mention distinction if this still isn't clear.

    This article is about the concept of subjugation. It is currently a stub, a sociololgy stub no less. It contains a further reading section that indicates that there is much to write on the subject of subjugation, because other people have written a lot on the subject. We don't delete "dicdef"s. We delete stub articles that have no potential for expansion, i.e. articles for which there is no source material available that can be used to expand the article beyond stub status. Clearly, there is source material in this case, and there is scope for expansion beyond a stub. That that expansion has yet to take place is not grounds for deleting the article. Deletion is not the way to improve the encyclopaedia in this case. Expanding the article is. Our Wikipedia:Deletion policy explains this pretty clearly.

    It's sad to see that so many editors are of the opinion that we should delete short encyclopaedia articles, even when there is apparent scope for their expansion from many sources. Keep. Uncle G 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • An article is not a dictionary article simply because it is short. Agreed. An article is a dictionary article because it contains nothing but a definition. Dictionary definition + external links does not make an encyclopedic article. It doesn't even make an encyclopedic stub. Fan1967 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle, please remember to be civil and not lecture us at to what constitutes a stub and what constitutes a dictionary entry. A number of the editors commenting here have been around long enough that it's safe to assume they know the difference. I don't see any of them advocating to "delete short encyclopaedia articles". I see them advocating deletion of a dictionary definition. I stand by my prior comment, and concur with Fan1967. Agent 86 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it, it's a stub and ought to stay. raptor 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Steph Show[edit]

May be notable in time but since not aired cannot be notable. As an encyclopaedia we record notable events after they have happened. This is not a forum for advertising upcoming TV shows. BlueValour 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, more because it's unsourced than because an as yet unaired show is inherently non-notable. Proto///type 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and unverifiable (no relevant Google hits on either Google.com or Google.com.au, which actually gives zero total Google hits), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It should be noted that the same editor has added this information to the Stephanie McIntosh article. Most of the user's other edits were reverted. --Coredesat talk 22:14, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Flower Records[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. May be a notable label in time but so far have only released two albums. BlueValour 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Could be notable in time, but not now and not in the form of self promotion. Wickethewok 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement for a non-notable label, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 22:21, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ashley Aull[edit]

vanity/non-notable student, speedy delete was contested, thus relisted here Travelbird 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd agree that the speedy should've been contested, though perhaps a {{prod}} would have been appropriate. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject falls well short of WP:BIO criteria. Not a speedy candidate though as there is some attempt to establish notability. On a side note, was that speedy contested or just removed without comment?--Isotope23 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no such thing as a contested speedy. You may replace speedy tags and issue appropriate warnings. Anyways, whether or not there is a vague claim of notability, still not notable. Wickethewok 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 22:21, 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. 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Timing[edit]

nonnotable slang term; only ghits are this article and its mirrors NawlinWiki 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - For local slang terms I would certainly need to see some references, which it seems there aren't any. Wickethewok 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable slang/neologism, unsourced and unverifiable. --Coredesat talk 22:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:06, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Wrestling[edit]

Vanity page. The promotion has only run two shows attended by a few hundred people, and is not worthy of an entry Sasaki 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but how can your reasoning be correct when the page could easily turn out to be useful information? Ste4k 17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "useful information"? The entire entry seems to only attempt to advertise the promotion. If Main Event Wrestling become a large successful promotion running dozens of shows then an entry could be justified in some form, but that is not the case at this moment in time. Sasaki 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ste4k is a bit miffed about an earlier AfD that was closed today and the statement above is a reference to that.--Isotope23 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP.--Isotope23 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is not a vanity page, it is a Valid page offering information upon a Promotion that may become something bigger, the authors are in the process of finding more sutible information to add to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verstan (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The article fits in with Category:Professional wrestling promotions which has a number of such small promoters. This one, though, appears smaller than the others. It appears to be written as a piece of promotion - though there are a number of articles which start out that way but become brilliant with good editing, so that in itself is not reason for a deletion so much as a cleanup. It doesn't look like an a clear and obvious case for deletion. But on the other hand there is little for a casual observer to say in its defence. Neutral I suppose. SilkTork 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 band. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the)Axa[edit]

likely non-notable, no relevant Google hits exept own page Travelbird 17:18, 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 merge with A Course in Miracles – Gurch 12:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitudinal healing[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted

This article should be deleted based on WP:NOT Definition #1 using WP:NEO as a guideline. Ste4k 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not necessarily the case. There is little or no cited evidence of significance in any of these articles which comes from outside the ACIM movement itself, as such it appears to constitute a walled garden and this is a legitimate reason for nomination of multiple related articles which does not constitute bad faith. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking any reputable sources from respected peer-reviewd journals, or possibly merge. Do not leave an article here, this looks like a one-man neologism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG (and merge or redirect to ACIM if wanted, but there's very little to merge); I don't see how ACIM websites can be used to show notability, or provide verifiability, for an ACIM-related term. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ACIM-cruft. Dr Zak 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG and Dr. Zak, who I think just coined a term. JChap 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge whatever (if any) encyclopedic material isn't already mentioned in the parent article. Shanes 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ACIM, prune and police the merged mess. --Pjacobi 19:25, 30 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 - no context. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bickley (font)[edit]

This is an advert with little encyclopaedic information BlueValour 17:33, 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 invalid afd should be listed at WP:MFD. W.marsh 20:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Last topic pool[edit]

Plain silly pool. You're poor 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't this AfD be closed and moved to WP:MfD? -- Kicking222 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may the article for deletion should be moved to somewhere else where we'll quickly conclude a keep is in order. WilyD 18:24, 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 speedy delete nn band  RasputinAXP  c 00:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychadelica[edit]

WP:BAND High school band. Even their own website has less than 2,000 self-reported hits. Rklawton 17:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Unfortunately, it's too small for Wikipedia. אמר Steve Caruso(desk/poll) 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged, band that doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability asserted, just a high-school band who have not recorded anything yet. DrunkenSmurf 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A7. --Coredesat talk 22:25, 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. Proto///type 14:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kunio Okawara[edit]

Subject of page appears unimportant. The page has no information. It was created July 5, 2005 and no substance has been added. KarenAnn 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem (at least in my opinion) was that there were no categories on the article, so it was just floating out there. Categories have been added to it now, in addition to the expanded information. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. If it can be exxpanded to show importance, I'll change my vote. HotWings 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still have a little more to translate, but I've expanded it a bit (still have 15 years to add). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've translated all of the credits for shows he's worked on. Is that sufficient to show notability? It's about 30 years of work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep now that article shows notability. HotWings 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles on the Japanese and Chinese wikipedias establish that the subject is notable, and the article can easily be expanded simply by translating from those. — Haeleth Talk 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable person in the anime industry. Google gives more than 20,000 hits for "Kunio Okawara". --Kusunose 23:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Haeleth and Kusunose, and length of article is not a criteria for deletion. hateless 23:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs expansion but notable person. - Wickning1 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Japanese and Chinese branch rulings as identified by user Haeleth.--KefkaTheClown 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as author has improved article considerably and I no longer think it should be deleted. KarenAnn 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per clean-up. --Kunzite 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (everything's been merged). Proto///type 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Benson[edit]

Harry Potter character who is notable only because she could possibly be R.A.B. However, consensus on the R.A.B. article says that the only possibility that should be included there is Regulus Black, as anything else would constitute original research. Thus, the Amy Benson article is limited to original research and non-notability. Northenglish (talk) -- 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment - She is an important minor character. Either merge, or keep. It's worth mentioning to say the least.--andrew... 09:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Though how may people would use the redirect after looking up the character is a different question..... Inner Earth 11:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Though for the record there has been considerable widespread external debate considering the possible candidates for RAB, and she is one who could be mentioned without a suggestion of OR. It is perhaps unfortunate that the RAB article is so definitive (even if likely accurate), since it spoils the fun.Sandpiper 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Chen[edit]

not notable - even his mag, his one weak claim to fame, doesn't rate an article here Rklawton 18:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails bio reqs, maybe speedy? Wickethewok 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Very few relevant Google hits outside of Harvard itself. --Coredesat talk 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time, non-notable.--Blog Mav Rick 23:41, 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. Proto///type 14:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Henwood[edit]

Not notable. Wrath of Roth 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry Willie, no Ghits. george 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Arbitrary engineer tis not notable. Wickethewok 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the current version of the article does not assert notability, previous ones do. They claim he was a spy. Presumably this claim was remoevd because it couldn't easily be proved. Can the article be kept until this point can be clarified? --TruthbringerToronto 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability whatsoever KleenupKrew 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability in the article's current incarnation. If notability can be asserted, I'll change my mind (in other words, I won't tag this myself). --Coredesat talk 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator explains it. RFerreira 03:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oligosocialism[edit]

POV, personal musing (doesn't deserve to be called original "research"), and an extreme protologism. It has the dubious distinction of not scraping up even a single Google hit. Delete. Nikodemos 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I authored this stub. A google search of "socialism for the rich" returns 14,700 results. There is a growing understanding that social programs are often designed to benefit the wealthy as opposed to everyone. It is important to document the recognition of this abuse. I have heard the term oligosocialism two times, but I cannot find a google hit for the term either. If the title is the main objection to the article, I do not mind changing it. For some similar terms, please see terms "oligarchy" and "oligopoly." I can easily add substantial documentation of cases where social programs have been structured to benefit distinct portions of the population. I don't think that too many examples would add to the general idea, however. Nevertheless, if others want to add examples, I am not opposed. I quote an internationally recognized author and historian in the article: Gore Vidal and I would like to add a quote from Noam Chomsky - please see below. I don't really see how this could be considered personal musing. Indeed, I believe that the article needs to be "beefed up," and I have no objection to doing so. If others have direct proof that there is no such thing as socialism for the rich they should add the information to the article rather than to label the article as pov, personal musing, protologism, or some other negative attribute. I see too often the same types of phrases thrown about to silence contributors. As I said, I consider the objection to the term oligosocialism as a valid concern. I do think however, that it very quickly conveys the foundation of the subject in question. Nevertheless I requested assistance in moving this article to another title - please see the discussion pages. Here is a section from a wikipedia article that I would like to add or link:
"In a different critique, the notable political activist Noam Chomsky, argues that the wealthy use free-market rhetoric to justify imposing greater economic risk upon the lower classes, while being insulated from the rigours of the market by the political and economic advantages that such wealth affords.[11] He remarked, "the free market is socialism for the rich—[free] markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."[12]
Finally, if there are any critics who believe that the phenomenon of "socialism for the rich" does not exist, please make your case. --24.206.125.213 09:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Chen[edit]

Relisting for afd consensus after prod tag was removed. Appears to be non-nontable person with no results in returned in google search. ~ Falls End (T, C) 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the organization might be barely notable but Steve isn't. Eluchil404 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the organization's article. --Merovingian {T C @} 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. not sourced. Joan-of-arc 23:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Dobson[edit]

Apparent Vanity Page - Google News says Zero notability WilyD 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (db-band) and so tagged; article just says he's working on music/film, not that anything has been released. NawlinWiki 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regardless of vanity status. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete claims to notability all unverifiable or crystal ball Pete.Hurd 02:12, 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 delete - nonsense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer drive[edit]

Obvious hoax. The text is utter nonsense, Google returns nothing at all, and the image is of a PC/104 computer found here. uberpenguin @ 2006-06-27 18:39Z

  • Delete. per nom. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it weren't written so badly I would recommend it for BJAODN. —Centrx→talk • 18:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G1. Patent nonsense per nom. Tevildo 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very obviously a hoax - also the attached photo is a copyright violation and needs to be deleted too. SteveBaker 19:21, 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. Proto///type 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movies shown on Spike TV[edit]

non-encyclopaedic; pointless. BlueValour 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless is write. An encyclopaedia should have information, not mindless heaps of facts. WilyD 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - are we to have lists of all the movies shown on ever on every TV station in the world? I think not. ~ Matticus78 19:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure there's a bit of difference no overlap between movies shown on Spike TV versus those shown on Lifetime Television, but the Spike TV article would suffice to describe the type of movies shown there. --Elkman 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft and as subtrivial as it gets KleenupKrew 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. --Coredesat talk 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom K1Bond007 22:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense and attack.  RasputinAXP  c 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Team![edit]

Delete The article is nonsense. The article was once prodded by a user named Hateless, leaving the comment (prod). It was later removed without comment. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Note that Googling the names gives no significant result. In addition, no article links here. DoomsDay349 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NFT. Not quite patent nonsense, but close. --DarkAudit 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 19:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. The content there fairly hateful, too. Yuck. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not for things made up by school bullies in one day. NawlinWiki 19:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. The users who have contributed to the article have only contributed to Your Team! (except for the anonymous IPs and the people who requested deletion). Maybe it wasn't made up in school, since school is probably out for the summer, but it's close enough. --Elkman 19:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, my original rationale in the prod tag itself was "Likely hoax, otherwise non-notable neologism/newly-invented game", and I'm sticking with it. hateless 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as the worst, not greatest, thing ever. Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Nonsense speedy tag added. --manchesterstudent 20:39, 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. Note that there's no decent reasons for deletion - a station ain't a schedule. The main reason given to keep (there are other similar articles) is equally worthless. So, default to keep. Proto///type 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18th (CTA)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a transit guide. Denni ☯ 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote, but I am interested to see how this turns out as there are a ton of similar articles on Wikipedia. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is still a stub. It would be better with photos of the murals mentioned in the article and some discussion of the neighborhood where it is located. TruthbringerToronto 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom KleenupKrew 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a transit schedule. --Coredesat talk 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep railway station, looks like the whole system is being put up but taking its time. No reason to delete as these are practically always kept as goegraphical features of importance, even if infrequently served (which this is not). SM247 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We have a precedent of articles not only for other CTA stations, but for places like New York and London. See some of those articles for an idea of what these pages could look like if expanded and given greater detail. And finally, there is nothing here which explicitly states that metro stations are not valid topics. -- SmokeDetector47( TALK ) 03:06, 29 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. Proto///type 14:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Harlan May[edit]

Very long vanity article that never really gets around to establishing notability. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Not quite worth an A7, as there may be some assertion of notability buried in it somewhere. Fails WP:MUSIC, in any case. Tevildo 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article says that he was a member of (a later version of) The Platters]. I think his various credentials add to to notability. --TruthbringerToronto 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, promo KleenupKrew 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant promotional vanity, fails WP:MUSIC. As for the The Platters mention, he is not mentioned anywhere in that article. According to Google, he is a member of a non-notable soul group of the same name. --Coredesat talk 22:37, 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 (but a reasonable option is the redireect to the valid disambig page Da Hood, so this is done). `'mikka (t) 03:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da' Hood[edit]

Slang dicdef... presents the usual problems. Is it the 'hood? Da Hood? Da' hood? Who knows! Just doesn't really seem like an encyclopedic topic since there's not much in the way of verifiable information to use... just rap lyrics and so on. We have articles on Housing projects, the inner city and ebonics where this could be much better covered. --W.marsh 19:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Slang, dicdef, and that first sentence ("Da' Hood (ebonics for "the neighborhood") is a dwelling place for many African Americans") is offensive and possibly racist KleenupKrew 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you care to check who wrote it before jumping to conclusions? `'mikka (t) 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK you got me there. But I still say delete since it's a dicdef, and if kept the first sentence needs a rewrite. in fact I'll do it right now. KleenupKrew 20:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional delete. The term does have some social connotations beyond a mere slang dicdef, but the main problem with the article is lack of reputable sources. The vote will be changed after wikipedia:Verifiability requirements will be satisfied. `'mikka (t) 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. Meanwhile check out Da Hood. `'mikka (t) 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and inflammatory. --Coredesat talk 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand and make the article grow. Falconleaf
The issue is over whether this is possible. The very title of the page is arbitrary, it seems. --W.marsh 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Da Hood, which is a valid disambiguation page. Yamaguchi先生 08:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Yamaguchi先生 the phrase itself doesn't need its own article. Eluchil404 18:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think wikipedia would be better if this was included. And also the sentence "Da' Hood is a dwelling place for many African Americans" is not offensive or racist because it is a true fact.--Taida 19:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry but there are plenty of urban dictionaries for this sort of thing--Ccosta 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. The article has very little content and context and was probably made to make fun of someone named Jeremy. -- Kjkolb 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Jeremy[edit]

Likely neologism. Google only returns text from article on Jeremy Mayfield, where the phrase "Pulling a Jeremy Mayfield" is listed in the trivia section with a completely different meaning. --Matticus78 19:16, 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. Proto///type 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of men with numerical suffixes[edit]

WP not an indiscriminate collection of information; this list could get way out of hand real fastNawlinWiki 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmanageable listcruft. --Matticus78 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete III, listcruft per Matticus. Agent 86 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IV, textbook example of listcruft. --Coredesat talk 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Haeleth Talk 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion the Vth per in-joke above and listcruft. SM247 04:46, 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. Proto///type 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eighternity[edit]

Advertising text and link for a commecial product P2pauthor 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm tempted to say that the idea is notable. The text needs to be cleaned up so that it's no longer a marketing spiel. - Richardcavell 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a diamond cut (there are lots) and makes no assertions of notability beyond marketing platitudes. Eluchil404 03:51, 22 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, Petros471 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant advertising. --Coredesat talk 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's see if I'm getting this right: Eighternity is a (presumably patented, if you can patent such things) way to cut a diamond, and also the name of a company that holds the patent and makes jewelry. At least I think that's it. It's all rather confusing, and the two concepts are mushed together. Eighternity the company doesn't seem notable; it's another jewelry company. Eighternity the cut... well, first of all, only one company is (or, presumably, can) use that cut, so how notable is that? And there are a lot of ways to cut a diamond; can't we include them in diamond or all collected into one article? I wish I knew more about diamonds, but unless educated otherwise, my spider-sense says Delete as spamcruft. Herostratus 01:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete ad copy, contains no encyclopedic material. Pete.Hurd 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The subject of this article is not established in the diamond industry and mainly promotes the product itself, much like in advertorials. There are many diamonds that can claim what this diamond can claim. Delete Barreview 04:35, 29 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. Proto///type 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spank! Youth Culture Online[edit]

nn, does not meet WP:WEB, and article fails to convince me otherwise Wisden17 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite confess I've never started a page before, but following a conversation on the website (whose wiki entry is in question) we decided we needed an entry here. More detailed and properly formatted information will follow. This was just to get the page up so we'd have a place to begin. I'm sorry for my ignorance of the etiquette.

  • Please Save: I'm Stephen Cassady, the Publisher of Spank!, and here's a few bits we'll add shortly. Other than being the longest running Youth Website (and I have references from books to confirm)(launched almost 11 years ago, we're older that Bolt.com - which has an enty), and we've been running constantly since launch. The WaybackMachine should show some early shots of the site. We continue to run, and exist. Our name (11 years old) comes from "brand spanking new", and the use of "fresh" associated with it. We've worked with most major record companies, IBM (on thier World Avenue Project commerce project back in the 90s, and even on the cover of their promotional magazine, we've won awards from numerous people including the New Museum of Art in NYC.
  • Criteria: I'll see if I can dig up the citations refering to Spank! in the books, and some of the awards to help back this. Stephen.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 19:29, 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. Proto///type 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuku Yuuku Yuuku[edit]

Non-notable comic, zero Googles. No assertion of notability, so delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources are provided. As it stands, this soundly fails WP:V: not only zero Google hits in English, but every plausible combination of 憂苦, ゆうく, ゆーく, ユウク, and ユーク, also comes up totally blank. In short, I have made reasonable efforts to determine whether the subject of this article exists, and I am drawing a total blank, which suggests it may not.
    Further suspicious points: the picture (what possible reason could there be to use a picture like that?), the article's author's revision [61] of a claim that made the lack of Google results totally implausible, and an anonymous user deciding to use his first and (to date) only edit [62] to remove my {{unreferenced}} template from the article. In short, smells suspiciously like a hoax. — Haeleth Talk 19:44, 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 There have been multiple requests to keep by editors who have made no edits other than to this AfD or the Haris Cizmic article. However after ignoring those I looked at the fact that most of the delete comments came before the changes to the article were made and the nominator withdrew the AfD. Plus a review of the article and the references lead me to believe that it should be kept. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Cizmic[edit]

PROD'ed, PROD removed. Advertising. Images are possible copyright violations.. DarkAudit 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Revision Author had made a good-faith effort to make corrections to the entry. If the temp page he created were used in place of the original, I am inclined to drop the nomination. --DarkAudit 20:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note another flood of sockpuppets (24 new ones today), below. "Sockpuppet" being defined as new user account whose only contribution is to comment on this AFD. NawlinWiki 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 292 votes for "Haris Cizmic" Hbdragon88 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note This user's vote was changed from Delete by the article's author. [63] --Huon 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD tag subsequently removed by author. Reinstated. --DarkAudit 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great page, don't delete this Roberto Giannetti 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i love this page, leave it there. -dalia6969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalia6969 (talk • contribs)
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AND DON'T CHANGE MY VOTE! Wildthing61476 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's a great page, leave it there djedamrazuk 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and see history --manchesterstudent 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete it, it is obviously an artist who deserves to be herefruskogorac 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire this guy, leave him alone-manchesterunited22 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note this vote is the above user's only WP edit. NawlinWiki 20:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Advertising, and looks like sockpuppet use as well. NawlinWiki 20:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can an admin protect this AfD from vandalism as apparently the sockpuppets are on the warpath? Wildthing61476 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with inclusive images per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, no sources, probably advertising and/or vanity. Huon 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Substitute current version by vastly improved rewrite. Notability is still an issue, but could be established with a little more time. --Huon 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with fire Holy sockpuppets, Batman! Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of sockpuppets, among other things. —EdGl 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete article and all images, full of copyvios. Sockpuppets all over the place. --Coredesat talk 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN worthy, I think. Hbdragon88 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not deserve existance ikh (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Holy sockpuppets Batman! BJK 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - nn scockpuppetry and fraud against Hbdragon by the author.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a general rule, the presence of sockpuppets is an indication that the article is not up to scratch. This is another example. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find notablity, looked pretty good around for him. Found some really old websites on archive.org too. Got a little bit, but doesn't hold a candle to WP:BIO. Also, loads of sockpuppets with fraudulent edits to other users comments. Kill it with fire, lots of fire. Kevin_b_er 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BURNINATE. SM247 04:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my opinion remains unchanged, still does not appear noteworthy in the absence of sources and specific accolades. SM247My Talk 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Block Obvious Sockpuppets --Alphachimp talk 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REALLY, DELETE MY PAGE, I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLICK, BUT TELL ME IS THIS WHAT YOU DO FOR LIVING? WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO POST A PAGE AND THEN TRASH IT?!? GET A LIFE, FIND A GIRL, BANG SOMETHING... GOD, SUCH A LOSERS!--Djedamrazuk 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you--HALASHbALASHkURBALASH 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • men...just arguing...is anyone up for a nice talk to a fine lady? drop me a word to [email protected]MayFlowerMillie 12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave the man alone--DarkSecretDude 12:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete this page, I don't see any reason for it. The page's clean and there aren't any copyright issues--Raphaelo 1963 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against deletion - There are many less important people listed here. I don't see any Sockpuppeting, dude has friends, so what? You can't open more than 6 accounts from a single IP address anyway...--Jonatan%slick 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I opose deletion as well...just don't see any good reason other than some personal issues. I remind you, this is not the place for personal things! --JudgeDredd13 12:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE - this is a slick page though --Mashallah aBoyZ 12:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DELETE MY PAGE - can I be more specific?--Djedamrazuk 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about this... SockPuppets, probably - but I do like the page and there's nothing really wrong there...Hmmmmmmmm --Alehandro R 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not DELETE! --LaZy@wOrk 12:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also against deletion. Few sockpuppets - yeah, but i would do it too... I was able to find many useful links and websites about the author...dunno...--Ju-On 12:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the author - DELETE IT! I'll survive without it- People, do you have a life to live?--Djedamrazuk 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not a place for personal advertising --BlackWindowSue 12:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THANK YOU - please delete my page and let's get over with this--Djedamrazuk 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page should STAY here --- 300 votes from Singapur --RedGuardian x 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a GREAT looking page There's no need to delete it, no copyrighted images, clean verbiage. OK, some fraudulent edits...hey, who likes to be treated like this? did you read these comments at all? --MorDoX 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== DO NOT DELETE ==--Morbid Angel55 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't delete this page... It's actually very lovely indeed.--Sasha lynX 69 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== DO NOT DELETE ==--Morbid Angel55 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I don't see anything wrong here, the author has a lot of credibility, the images are obviously his own work, no copyright issues, it seems clean to me - DON'T DELETE--Bernard6 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE THIS ARTICLE - It visually and conceptually activates the essentially transitional quality. I understand it's difficult to enter into this topic because of how the figurative-narrative matrix spatially undermines the substructure of critical thinking. With regard to the issue of content, the disjunctive perturbation of the spatial relationships contextualize a participation in the critical dialogue, however...I think that the reductive quality of the purity of content makes resonant the distinctive formal juxtapositions. But, to keep it short, I say DON'T DELETE! --Onomatopeja tica 13:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC),[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE, I AM A GREAT DESIGNER AND I CAN'T HAVE MY SPACE IN WIKIPEDIA-SO WHY SHOULD HE BE LISTED HERE?!?--Michelle27 14:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above posts should show why this article needs to be removed, and the offending sockpuppeter's account blocked. Wildthing61476 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am for DON'T DELETE, I can see some personal issues only, no real reasons to remove the page, but if the author wants it down, kill the page.--SImONIdApUHALO 14:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page is technically OK Wildthing(hahaha) you shouldn't blame someone for being sockpuppeter without having the list of matching IP addresses or so. Otherwise, you should apologize --WildWind244 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the page down-actually take it ALL down, who nees wikipedia anyway? It's only a pool for some hungry sharks anyway--Bruce Lee01 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE THIS LISTING there's no copyright violation.--Princess Lea 14:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone checking the age of "editors" here? this is a great site, I say keep it here and if someone says I am a sockpuppeter, I'll find him personally --Silent Violent 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with the threats already, you've made your point Wildthing61476 14:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - there's no violation of ANY wikipedia rule--MiloshObilich 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this considered to be up to standards? --Riley 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think page nice...i like...veri much --B.o.r.a.t 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Say whatever you want but i like the guy and therefore DO NOT DARE TO DELETE--Deliberation13 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TO DELETE OR NOT TO DELETE...Now when the holier-than-thou crowd tries to call me a slut in so many words, or attempts to insinuate that I have no idea what real love is all about, I just have to smile a big, sloppy, satisfied grin...--IsusChrist 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then why don't one of you help him out and fix the page? It's not beyond saving if someone with more knowledge steps up and makes it more than what looks like an advertisement. Some biographical information and links to outside sources would be a good start. Just because it's a candidate for deletion doesn't mean it will be. Put more time into fixing the page and less ranting here, and the page can be saved. --DarkAudit 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DARKAUDIT is a wise man. Well said, Sir. No need to be bitter, it's the easiest thing in the world. We hate our own neighbors, so why wouldn't we hate someone we can't even see? A little help is what we all need, one way or another...--Liverpool 888 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Award-winning? OK, what awards? How old is he? Where was he born? Where did he receive his training? Make the page worthy of keeping. --DarkAudit 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • i have created a temporary subpage ('cause the label on a page says i can't edit the page now). can you please check it out and let me know. I don't have experience with posting on wikipedia, so i could use some help - especially with my grammar : thanks--Djedamrazuk 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's more like it. Now if someone could point me to that subpage, please. (Don't worry. I just want to see it.) --DarkAudit 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's at Talk:Haris_Cizmic/Temp. It's an improvement, but still carries all the copyrighted/disputed images. And still doesn't cite any valid sources, I might add. ~ Matticus78 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better! The temp page is getting close to Keep status as far as I'm concerned. As for the copyrights, if they're his own work, doesn't that allow him to use them here? Or would the ones who commissioned the work have first claim of copyright? --DarkAudit 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks guys, see i have no experience with wikipedia, so i did put those "copyright" labels there, but i have changed them now. There is no copyright issue, all the images are available on artist's website as well, and there is no copyright case pending on any of posted pictures. Please let me know what else is needed -- THANKS FOR THE CORRECTIONS DARKAUDIT!--Djedamrazuk 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're quite welcome. I'm glad that everyone's had a chance to calm down and get things fixed. With the biographical and other information added, I don't have a problem with the revised page. It's quite an improvement over the original. --DarkAudit 20:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The temp page is indeed much better. But the complete lack of sources (newspaper reports about the awards or the design jobs (especially for BMW), for example) is still a problem. IMHO the greatest claim of notability would be his musical career, which is barely mentioned at all. The copyvio tag seems strange to me, since the user who added it didn't state whose copyright was supposed to be violated. The page isn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, either. Huon 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the problem is that no one lists awards online after 5-6 years. (There is no award for the BMW, just a magazine ad designed for them, available for preview on www.theaxart.com I did not post that ad, because of their logo on it). I am not sure about Memorex, if they still keep old awards listed, but i can provide some scanns and screenshots. Musical awards are just some big paper things with hard cover. I could probably provide around 60 magazine and newspaper articles, but majority of them is not in english and they are just old scans. To post them - it would probably look ridiculous and funny. Shouldn't be enough to swear on the bible or something... :) ? --Djedamrazuk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just crossed my mind - if the author was an art director of few magazines, (and they are available for public view on his website), shouldn't that be a printed representation of his design work? also, could this help - http://cosmeticsurgerytimes.com/cosmeticsurgerytimes/classified/classifiedDetail.jsp?id=308191

--Djedamrazuk 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the difficulties with awards nearly a decade old, but Wikipedia requires verifiability and reliable sources. While I personally certainly believe that everything written on that article is true, that's not enough.
  • Comment per my lineout above, my original objections with the entry have been rendered moot by the version in the temp page. Although citing sources may still be at issue, that can be addressed with a little effort. --DarkAudit 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am working on it. i'll also include a letter from Mr.Bill Clinton & photo will let you know when it's up and i'll provide the link to documents & images. Thanks for help! --Djedamrazuk 00:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added some sources, scans, links, references, etc. Check it out and please let me know --Djedamrazuk 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent. Make that the main page, and as far as I'm concerned, the nomination is moot and therefore, dropped. --DarkAudit 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks man. how to make it a main page and how to get rid of that annoying Copyright Violation header? - BTW, I owe you a beer, DarkAudit.--Djedamrazuk 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the main page article by the rewrite (with some minor edits) and removed the copyvio tag, see talk for detailed explanation. --Huon 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Huon, it does look nice now. What happens next? Who decides about the page's destiny now? thanks.--Djedamrazuk 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, an AfD is open for five days. In the end, an admin takes a look and decides wether the arguments for deletion outweight those for keeping the article. (The quality of "votes" is taken into account, not just the quantity.) I assume that DarkAudit's retraction of the AfD will count heavily in the article's favor, but it might happen that Cizmic's notability is still considered insufficient (see WP:BIO and WP:Music for notability guidelines). For now I would just wait and see. --Huon 22:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gladly withdrawn and good luck. --DarkAudit 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks guys. Huon, is there a way to improve WP:BIO and WP:Music notability? I am not familiar with those terms that much. .--Djedamrazuk 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the AfD tag since I have withdrawn the nomination. Now if some passing admin could close out this discussion, please? --DarkAudit 14:58, 30 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. Proto///type 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Apps[edit]

Ad for apparently nn newsvine column. Artw 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Started in April 2006? Not notable enough. Also an ad. --Coredesat talk 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete badly written (self?) promotion of NN on-line column. Pete.Hurd
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of heritage[edit]

Possible OR, possible neologism Hornplease 19:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as I see a very few Ghits making use of the phrase, but only in passing rather than an identifiable, notable phenomenon. Unless I'm much mistaken the creator has had other similar neologistic sociology-related articles speedy-deleted today. ~ Matticus78 21:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay, and as above. --Allen 23:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even worth saving as written as pure generality. SM247 04:37, 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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fawzi[edit]

Clear vanity page. Artw 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resumé spam. Delete. Meehawl 03:38, 29 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 Userfied and deleted.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other films aired on The SciFi Channel[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic. Pointless. BlueValour 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have reverted the AfD template that was blanked. from the article. BlueValour 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with BlueValour, non-encyclopaedic. Benjaminstewart05:-) 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft, and as per the Movies shown on Spike TV AfD above ~ Matticus78 20:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'd rather you'd keep the segments of 'Radiation Theatre' and 'Moonlight Matinee' since I've worked hard to compile such which is quite the contrary for the rest of the article. DrWho42 21:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ask an Admin to Userfy (send to one of your User sub-pages) to enable you to work up a new article (that is not mainly a list). BlueValour 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Will do then. I'm actually the very person who sent this listcruft over to an article since it seem'd a mess on the Sci Fi Channel article, but tried the first time round to get it deleted since its existence and format annoyed me.. DrWho42 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft and per the Movies shown on Spike TV AfD. Userfy the parts the creator wants saved. --Coredesat talk 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; films made by the SciFi Channel are noted elsewhere, and films listed here are either represented elsewhere or non-notable. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy per above. JIP | Talk 10:48, 29 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, withdrawn by nominator. Fang Aili talk 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theaxa[edit]

Not notable band. From same person who authored (the)Axa, which is also up for deletion. Author has a habit of removing AfD tags. DarkAudit 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not notable??? dude, that band is huge in central europe now. where are you from?!?

  • Comment also fails WP:VAIN. All outside references are their own project pages. --DarkAudit 20:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how about this: http://www.raw42.com/reviews/axa.html

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=10687214&type=product&id=306333 http://www.mp3.com/axa

what else do you want ?

  • Comment the cyber equivalent of removing my foot from my mouth. Further research attests to notability. I hereby rescind my AfD. --DarkAudit 20:28, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rurouni Kenshin: Redemption[edit]

Non notable fanmade future game project Fram 19:52, 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ActivMedia Robotics and MobileRobots Inc (redir)[edit]

Delete. Private co, 600+ Google hits [64], nothing on Google news, unclear how meets WP:CORP.- CrazyRussian talk/email 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some trade magazine articles under "External links" which I think meet WP-CORP's criterion of "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." TruthbringerToronto 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it would be nice if those sources were connected with (i.e. referenced in) the article proper. Ziggurat 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per clarification to the page by TT. There would appear to be quite a few more at the company's media relations page that would appear to satisfy WP:CORP. Plus, they build robots, man. We must be kind to our future robot overlords. Kuru talk 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Toe Ring[edit]

This article is, quite plainly, useless. At bare minimum it should be merged with Toe ring but probably outright deleted. The author of the article has been spamming this article as well as Celtic toe into other articles in an attempt to create a new urban legend. IrishGuy talk 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing here to merge as it is unsourced.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article does not cite sources, but I have seen them mentioned locally in tourist information places. Google tends to find them "for sale" Agathoclea 22:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced, not really notable. --Coredesat talk 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Britton LaRoche 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think attempting to insult me is really going to help your case. IrishGuy talk 00:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was sourced, it would be incredibly non-notable. -- Kicking222 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Celtic toe is vaid, and if there was a popular trend among such people to put a ring on the second toe, ... it's still not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the Backstreet Boys are notable and worthy of an article (as evidenced by the fact you're talking about them.) --Alphachimp talk 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Your toe rings "sketch" is quite clearly this image taken from a commercial website [65], flipped horizontally and with a sketch filter applied in a photo manipulation package. Your foot sketch has all the hallmarks of a digital filter as well, though I can't confirm the existence of a copyrighted original. You can't just apply a filter to copyrighted images and claim them as your own work. And besides, the addition of images, correctly copyrighted or otherwise, doesn't affect any claim on an article's notability. ~ Matticus78 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Kicking222 et al. Pete.Hurd 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above, Alphachimp talk 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per IrishGuy. Alun


  • I apologize if I came across as brusque, but firstly I was pointing out an apparent hole in your knowledge of what you can and cannot claim ownership of, not attempting to disparage your artistic abilities. And secondly, making thinly-veiled legal threats is not cool. Furthermore, your "slander/libel" ring images are also bordering on WP:ATTACK material. You are only eroding your own credibility here. ~ Matticus78 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article serves no purpose whatsoever except to promote the author's main 'project' - to push the Celtic toe urban legend.--Nydas 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per IrishGuy and others above. Tapir Terrific 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seeing as this discussion has turned into a flamewar/self-promotion spree, would WP:SNOW apply (even though it's not really a policy)? --Coredesat talk 05:57, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Courtland[edit]

As far as I can establish she fails WP:PORN BIO - in the one filmography I found it lists just 17 films in 2005. BlueValour 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. On IMDB, in addition to only 17 films, there are no awards listed [66].--Fuhghettaboutit 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, 17 films is a fair amount for porn actors and IMDb is unreliable when it comes to listing all of their movies. She seems to have a lot of fans, too. -- Kjkolb 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, 100 films is the WP:PORN BIO threshold. BlueValour 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No 17 films is nothing for porn actors, which is why the standard of 100 has evolved. While a conventional actor may make 17 films over 17 years, porn stars often make many more than that in a year. Here, for example, is John Holmes listing at imdb, [[67]]. You'll see that he made 24 films in 1981. If you look up Ron Jeremy you'll see he has been in over 900 films.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:47, 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 Premature closing and Speedy Delete of all listed articles by Deckiller because of discovered copyright violations (CSD A8) from firststrike.totalbf2.com. A message has been placed on Mathieu121's talk page describing this incident and the site's policy toward copyright violations and non notable content. — Deckiller 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlasTech A280 Blaster Rifle[edit]

Fictional gun related to fictional game which is also being listed for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_Strike JennyRad 20:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cruft from a game which is not-notable enough in its own right for inclusion.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not Wookieepedia. --Coredesat talk 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disintigrate it using the anti-cruft ray. Artw 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is apart of a series of copyright violations from this site: firststrike.totalbf2.com. Closing and deleting. — Deckiller 21:14, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werner's Leather and Sportswear[edit]

Found this listed as "Speedy" per CSD: A7. However, companies are not subject to A7. Re-listing here. Should be deleted per WP:CORP. Agent 86 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. My understanding of A7 was that a company falls under the "group of people" part, but I could be mistaken. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local store advertizing. Store's only google hits are to this article (so they got their improper benefit).--Fuhghettaboutit 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS, WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 22:49, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadblow[edit]

Articles on the individual battle robots, even ones made by notable special effects artists, seem like cruft. The robot is already mentioned on Grant Imahara's article and the Battlebots article. ~ Matticus78 20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems notable enough.--File Éireann 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a freakin' robot, with no assertion -- none, zip, zero, nada, nil -- of notability. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I personally don't think every BattleBot should be catalogued, Deadblow is the #2 ranked middleweight and 2 time rumble winner. Had a few toys made of it too. Wikipedia has an entire category dedicated to notable Robot Wars robots, I think the popularity of BattleBots would warrant a similar category for a select group. Arenacale 03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep. The robot is notable, but the problem is that the information on the BattleBots website is horribly out of date (from early 2001). BattleBots has had several competitions (televised and non-televised) since then, and they haven't updated their website. Deadblow hasn't competed in any events since 2001. It's made a few appearances on MythBusters, but that doesn't really add a lot. --Coredesat talk 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arenacale, given that this is (or once was) a high-ranking bot. Sources need to be worked into the article. Yamaguchi先生 08:10, 29 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. Proto///type 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Aviation[edit]

Non notable game/online group. cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is connected to the "Virtual Airline Stock Exchange" [68] , which doesn't have an article at Wikipedia. Perhaps someone who pays more attention to online gaming than I do could be asked how significant this group is. I think an application called "Airline Manager" [69] is involved as well. --TruthbringerToronto 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Been there, done that: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual WestJet for a previous AFD regarding what's essentially a gaming clan for a very very narrow slice of gamers. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Virtual airline? I think Calton's analogy is correct - it's a gaming guild for business majors. Kuru talk 21:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto///type 14:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up! Aria[edit]

Delete Just a non-notable hentai. I'd think it would fall into the same category as countless non-notable porno movies. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just hold a minute. I am not through with the page yet! BushinGuy
  • Neutral Weak Keep if Kitty Media is notable, this is on the list of their productions translations of hentai. Logic says this debate might be better held about Kitty Media, and then either all their productions go, or all stay. Having looked at several of the other pages in the list at Kitty Media I see this as no more and no less notable than their other films work. The article is much shorter and is really a stub. Fiddle Faddle 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Re: above: Even if the company's notable, their individual products may not be. As an example, if we find that Bic is notable, does that perforce mean that each of their pen lines are worthy of solo articles?--Fuhghettaboutit 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because a company is notable doesn't mean all its products are notable. --Coredesat talk 22:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Fiddle Faddle. As notable as any other of Kitty Media's productions. Tevildo 10:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Kitty Media is only a translator of H-Anime, not the producer. Therefore, I think that argument really shouldn't hold for them. Also, see what Fuhghettaboutit said. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment My error. I will now cross out some more above. I still view the item as a Keep, but in view of reinvestigating to confirm your info I am revising my opinion to "weak". Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable (it's been commercially published in at least two countries now). Also, I agree with Fiddle Faddle's comments above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm for every work of anime that ever existed being in Wikipedia. The fact that the product does not interest YOU does not make it unnoteable. Snarfies 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, now is not the time the Wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism. It isn't notable (not just because I don't care about it, but because there are incredibly' few souls out there who do), and it's hentai or H anime, not plain anime. There are plenty of independent films and pornographic films that have been deleted that are about as notable as this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or very very weak merge to parent company article.) Does not assert notability, the article itself is full of fluff "Aria is annoyed by this but is releaved when the wind blows Isogu away." This title was apparently never released on its own in the English market, but bundled with antoher title.
What were the sales? It doesn't matter if it's been published in one or more countries. It doesn't matter if the producer is notable. (Also we should mow down the red-link farm in the parent article.) Second, if the article does stay (and it shouldn't) the article reads like a promotional ad for the video. It mentions nothing of the dissaproving reviews online begging people not to buy the video that was compared to a "mound of elephant droppings " [70] "I must learn my lesson not to expect too much variety from obviously low-budgeted h-anime." [71] --Kunzite 21:52, 30 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 Stop motion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop motion animator[edit]

Advertising for a specific piece of nonnotable software NawlinWiki 20:52, 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. Proto///type 14:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnBase[edit]

Advertorial for NN software corp Fiddle Faddle 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia should start charging for advertising. Then this page could stay. I'd charge them $50/day. george 22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ADS, WP:CORP, and WP:SOFTWARE. --Coredesat talk 22:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The tagged article is about the product, so the parent corporation isn't really in scope. I get about 215,000 hits for onbase + 'hyland software'. There seems to be quite a few media articles about onbase [73], at least a few of which are relevent to WP:SOFT. It would appear to be the primary product of a 'notable' software company (I'm assuming thats not in question since we didn't nominate Hyland Software). It seems to also have quite a few industry segment awards; but those seem a little iffy (most are 'top 100' types, and several are specific to the vendor). It would also appear to have a fairly large install base for large-scale specialized software (2,600 corporate sites). I think the article just needs some work; and I don't see anything too gushing that would trigger my spam alarms (maybe that middle sentence?). Kuru talk 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klement's Sausage Company[edit]

nn. fails to meet WP:CORP, and there is in my opinion no expceptional notability which renders notbaility beyond the realm of WP:CORP --Wisden17 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Anyone can make a sausage.--Anthony.bradbury 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, their sausage is plenty tasty. Making tasty sausage isn't as easy as you purport. Anyway, we musn't keep this page. Perhaps if Khruschev had visited their plant and munched some sausage in 1959, or perhaps if Klements had been freeze dried and included on Apollo 11's menu. But alas, all it has accomplished is cutting short the lives of obese Wisconsonians over these many years, non of them notable either.george 22:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mmm sausage still delete. BJK 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet criteria - much as though I hate to delete any food page. Rgds, - Trident13 21:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with sauerkraut. SM247 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this might actually meet WP:CORP; I think they sponsor sausage races that are widely publicized. I'll look into it later. Grandmasterka 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has entered a grocery chain in Milwaukee or Wisconsin for that matter knows Klement Sausage. It deserves retention as much as any other purveyor of this food does.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 13:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Emmett[edit]

Biography does not obviously meet WP:BIO standards, but might pass awards, verifiability or news coverage test if we did the research. Need UK and Israel located editor opinions on citations used, plus general review. No opinion from me yet. GRBerry 21:32, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demand reduction[edit]

text is completely off topic and nowhere near NPOV, rather just a parroting of arguments against drug prohibition Reswobslc 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve - articles of relevant title and topic (btw, over 15 other articles link to this article) should not be deleted -- especially at the whim of those who disapprove of the subject matter. --Thoric 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just because 15 articles link here doesn't mean that the content on the page is relevant to the topic. As I'm new on WP, I suspect I may have inadvertently recommended that the entire article be dropped - which is not what I mean when I say that most of the contents of the article ought to simply be removed. I wish I had better research done to put in its place. I personally feel drugs should be legalized, but I am not adding my opinions about it to the organic chemistry page, nor the White House page, or the Harvard Law School page. A page about Demand reduction should focus on explaining what Demand reduction is and perhaps talk about what governments may be doing to implement Demand reduction. Instead we have multiple uncited references to what "many" or "most" think (4x), vague uncited statements to what "can be described" and what "can be argued", as well as multiple uncited statements about what "seems to be" . None of these statements talk about Demand reduction. All these need to go, at least in favor of something that talks about the topic of Demand reduction, or at the very least, cites some source other than the author's opinion. Reswobslc 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire contents of an article can be changed without its deletion, in fact it is preferable to boldly change an article than to delete it entirely. The only articles that are to be deleted are those that have no place at all in Wikipedia. --Thoric 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. This is an important concept in the field of substance abuse control. Many state and federal agencies are studying and implementing demand reduction based strategies,as Reswobslc noted. Since Res thinks he "may have inadvertantly recommended the entire article be dropped" (which he in fact did) perhaps he should withdraw the nom and speedy keep? --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw nomination at least in spirit, now do I just simply remove the tags I put in, or is that something I can't do? Reswobslc 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the fact that it is a significant anti-drug strategy used by law enforcement produces more than enough merit. --Alphachimp talk 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, less opinion and more facts needed. What are the arguments behind demand reduction? --AndrewC 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept (no opinion on my part), Rename to Demand reduction (anti-drug propaganda) and delete the redirect. An article under this title should refer to any "societally undesireable" product. (Certainly the anti-cigarette campaign in California would qualify for a mention.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the anti-cigarette program in Canada is mentioned. It doesn't match the (quasi-)definition in the first paragraph, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, there are now no Delete votes. Doesn't it qualify for a Speedy Keep? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 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 keep. W.marsh 13:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundboard (magazine)[edit]

Not obviously notable magazine. Article appears to be functioning as an advertisement. No specific notability guideline obviously applies. Initial creator's only edits were to this article. GRBerry 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. I agree that it isn't obviously notable, but I favor giving it the benefit of the doubt for another few months. Especially as a printed magazine... I'd probably feel different if it were yet another webzine or something. --Allen 23:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Printed magazine, apparently around for 31 years (Volume XXXI, No. 2&3 on website), and we find many references to it on Google search[75] ("After giving what Soundboard Magazine described as a fiery performance", "See review in Spring/Summer issue of GFA Soundboard Magazine", etc.) —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Nimmo[edit]

I have just completed an update on this article, and at the end thought - why the blow did I spend my time doing that? It's pretty obvious which way her career is going, and her archery "record" which brought the article back last time is for South African Junior Ladies - not exactly notable. Delete the page and merg the good data into the main BB5 pag Trident13 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We can't have an article for every reality (fake)-show contestant. Maybe one day she will become a notable porn star, but that day is not today. —Centrx→talk • 06:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some reality show contestents deserve their own article, but this isn't one of them. Loads of random members of the public [can] appear in videos on TVX, so that isn't particularly notable. Much of the article is just fancruft trivia. The JPStalk to me 09:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The JPS. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- 9cds(talk) 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Four of the last four BB AFDs were keeps (counting two NCs) (Greg Mathew (AfD discussion),Tim Brunero (AfD discussion),David Mathew (AfD discussion),Simon Deering (AfD discussion)) Also, if we do as the nom suggested (merge) we can't delete this anyhow. Merge is a type of keep, and incompatible with deletion (due to attribution requirements of GFDL). You can implement a merge/redirect without an AFD (or after a keep result). Then, editors can do, and undo, a redirect as appropriate (e.g. based on level noteworthy information available, which may change). There really are only two options for BB bios, keep/merge or keep/stand-alone. A true delete is basically ruled out (except for attack and copyvio cases). --Rob 14:19, 29 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church 2.0[edit]

Neologism. Seems to exist purely in a set of interlinked blogs. Artw 22:18, 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 all.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Routes In Braintree[edit]

Articles listing bus service details for every settlement are not encylopedic and repeat existing articles about each settlement and articles about county-wide travel such as List of bus routes in London and List of bus routes in Essex. All articles should redirect to the county-wide lists.

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

Mrsteviec 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we should keep North Weald and get rid of the rest. george 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat talk 22:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. ~ Matticus78 23:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because they should be part of more comprehensive lists for wider regions if anything. SM247 04:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Besides, saying my bus route has a bus every 10 minutes is pure fantasy. --Richhoncho 09:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Make the larger scale articles better and sectioned. Ace of Risk 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are basically a description of the city and then bus schedules. No one cares about bus schedules on Wikipedia. —Mets501 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Buscruft. --DaveG12345 23:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. A simple link from the towns article to an outside address might be a better idea. --SpeechFreedom 00:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unencyclopedic. --kingboyk 10:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to List of bus routes in Essex except Chingford which should be merged to List of bus routes in London. MLA 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Non-encyclopaedic. Bus routes change periodically and are usually available via a commercial website that will be kept up to date. This article is likely not to be. Peterkingiron 23:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baggle-Flumper[edit]

Either a neologism or hoax. No hits in google or Medline for "Baggle-Flumper" "Baggle Flumper" "Baggle Flump" etc. Prod removed by only editor. References promised by the editor have not appeared, and the article is now identical to the original edit. Mr Stephen 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually, now that it's listed for AfD, Google gives a hit [76] ikh (talk) 08:34, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise 2.0[edit]

Neologism of dubious utility. I can find examples of it's use online but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it means other than "sort of like Web2.0, but businessy" Artw 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a Marketing 2.0, but I think it just quite manages to squeeze by... Artw 22:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ELearning 2.0 and Identity 2.0 are kind of questionable as well. Artw 22:56, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saphia Water[edit]

Advertisment for product containing unverified health benefit claims. Originally speedied but WP:SPAM request advertising articles are taken to AfD for discussion.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  22:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable product with unsourced claims, article is an ad; Delete. -Fsotrain09 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for non-notable product, unsourced claims. --Coredesat talk 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doublespeak adcopy—low calorie water indeed. I just bet this is also a copyvio but can't find it.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable (Google gives 224 hits for "Saphia Water" [77]); blatant advertising ikh (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utter adcopy. Unverifiable claims. OK, I suppose water has been proven to help with dehydration. Kuru talk 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Here's their homepage. Product has not even been launched yet. Kuru talk 19:25, 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. W.marsh 13:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of video game consoles (eighth generation)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Indrian 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - F 22 07:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC) - Keep it. so what if it is in the future, so are hundreds of wiki articles. What damage can be done by keeping this article. Think of the people who have worked on this article and put effort into it.[reply]
  • Keep- I've cleaned up the speculation and will continue too if it's neccesary. It is a confirmed event, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have all confirmed they will be producing consoles in that generation.Spizzma 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is it confirmed that the companies will make systems for that generation but I doubt it will be long before we start hearing more information (Cell was announced not that long after the PS2 was released & Nintendo always reveals the code name early). SNS 01:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then we can make an article then. Right now, there is no verifiable information that could be included in this article, and "Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will be producing consoles" is not enough. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystalballism. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Coredesat. - Wickning1 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense and also as an attack page - note the allegations of drug abuse, etc.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Blockers[edit]

OK, does owning a nightclub and making "several fleeting appearances in the Kaiser Chiefs DVD 'Enjoyment'" make you notable? Mind you, since AfD is not a cleanup squad, I'll draw a veil over the POV and unencyclopaedic nonsense in this article. :-( BlueValour 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOV, WP:VAIN, and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per Cordesat and because his name returns 74 unique google hits and I'm not sure any are to him (mostly sunglasses).--Fuhghettaboutit 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just delete, but speedy delete. Obvious nonsense: the sooner it's gone, the less the smell. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as NN bio. Tagging now... --Bugwit Speak / Spoken 00:52, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collabulary[edit]

nn Neologism, and a bit of a silly one. Artw 22:44, 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Bus Route 53[edit]

This article has been prodded twice(!) - the first time by me on the basis of a lack of notability (IMHO individual bus routes are rarely going to be notable) and was deprodded by User:SPUI with "enough history" as the edit summary, and the second time by User:Abcdefghijklm who said Seemingly unimportant article. Was attempting to Wikify, but I do not see a reason to keep it anyway. A 20 year old bus route run by a seemingly minor company doesn't seem like a good enough reason to keep it. I still think that it is not notable, and therefore that it should be deleted. -- AJR | Talk 23:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While there is a lot of detailed information about this bus route, that doesn't make the subject any less picayune.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete picayune per above (I had to look that one up ;) --Eivindt@c 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. --Coredesat talk 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just a bus route, weasel-wording of one of the oldest routes currently operated by Cardiff Bus notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual bus routes are not notable. SM247 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it was the oldest bus route in the country I might understand, I have put information in the Cardiff Bus article which should more than suffice. There is no need for a full article though.Abcdefghijklm 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete buscruft --DaveG12345 07:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely bus routes are non-notable, and they change periodically. This is non-encycopaedic and should be left to commercial websites which will keep the infomration up to date. Peterkingiron 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Transit incident (ECW)[edit]

This article is redundant since it is covered in the Extreme Championship Wrestling Lawsuit section. Also, the article is not noteworthy enough to deserve it's own entry. Kyros 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom; totally redundant. --Doc Tropics 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Alphachimp talk 07:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that this article has been listed for deletion previously, with the consensus of keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass transit incident. Aplomado talk 07:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It was indeed a notable incident and it is probably a good idea to seperate out from the main article. And it survived an AFD in which is was agreeded upon being noteworthy. I don't think that has really changed. NegroSuave 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a widely known incident but not much information is given on it elsewhere. Details on the incident are not easily found. Thus I believe it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.224.252 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I just stumbled across this article through a link on Blading (professional wrestling). It is highly informative and offers much more detail than the brief coverage in the ECW lawsuit section. It is not totally redundant. It is appropriately linked to by other articles. It is not advisable to link to sections, so even if this article's information were merged in to the ECW article there would still be a problem of linking. The incident is notable and stands as an e.g. of not trying things at home and how dangerous blading can be. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant event in professional wrestling. MLA 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant event in wrestling history.JB196 12:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is not redunant with the brief coverage in the main Extreme Championship Wrestling article, and was a significant event for all of professional wrestling, not just ECW. -Darryl Hamlin 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said, this is very informitive with the dangers of underexperienced wrestlers wanting to just jump in the ring. -Filmmaster_13 08:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nexus[edit]

I did have it prodded because it was a NN resturant. However, an annon went and merged two articles into one and now it's a big mess. BJK 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how to go about it at this point, but it seems like the restaurant should be deleted as NN, while the RPG article should be cleaned up. --Doc Tropics 01:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restaraunt: delete - defunct corner eateries aren't notable, per WP:CORP; game: weak keep, as it does seem to have modestly sized following (e.g. [78]), and I'd rather err on the side of inclusion. ikh (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe the article should be deleted. I modified this article because it was about three different things. Two of which seemed to stand on their own, one which should just be a redirect to the main StarCraft page. As for the roleplaying Nexus, that can be located Here.
  • Weak delete - not thatnotable. SYSS Mouse 18:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEak delete - same reason. Peterkingiron 23:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 'already deleted. SYSS Mouse 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ffffpppptthheeewww[edit]

No Google hits and an unsearchable title anyway; twice nominated for speedy deletion as nonsense, which as far as I can see it isn't, and a disputed prod. Likely a joke; besides, this is more the sound he makes when he shoots webs. :-) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Danny Lilithborne 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title became very funny when I read the article. But it's unverfiable, and not really encylopedic. Should be in WP:BJAODN. Yanksox (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. My delete sense is tingling. Is anybody ever likely to type that exact phrase, with the same number and order of Fs, Ps, Ts, Hs, Es and Ws, as a search term? ~ Matticus78 00:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and the article's creator removed the delete tags three times. A sorry joker if I ever saw one (wait, the Joker was Batman wasn't it...?) ~ Matticus78 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually bothered to check the two sites listed in the article (not that if they verified I would vote to keep) and nothing; BJAODN.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BJAODN. Please don't let this gem be lost to BJAODN readers. - Richardcavell 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BJAODN, it got a chuckle, but totally non-encylopedic. --Doc Tropics 00:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You've got to be kidding me right? BJK 00:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD-A1 - patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DAFT emphasis on the D. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete approaching the Crème de la Crème but not quite there, even though a few giggles were provoked. SM247 04:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spidey Delete as patent nonsense, plus it is misspelt --DaveG12345 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I laughed, but it's a delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:32, 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 keep. W.marsh 13:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zadar! Cow From Hell[edit]

With respect to any editors from eastern Iowa; any film that hasn't reached beyond there struggles to establish notability. And when the most memorable line is "The Movies are coming, The movies are coming." I think that says it all! BlueValour 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nomination is borderline on incivility/personal attack against people from eastern Iowa (which I guess the author is). There doesn't seem to be any reason to delete, besides maybe a dislike of movies from Iowa. --Keitei (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'incivility/personal attack'? Don't be silly - the point I was making, obviously badly, is that a film that has not reached beyond part of a state (any state) is struggling for notability. WP:AGF. I am from the UK and know nothing about Iowa, never mind have anything against them! It has also failed to get any major DVD release. I am not arguing that it is not a worthy film simply that it does not seem to meet WP notability standards. BlueValour 04:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • a dislike of movies from Iowa A pretty huge category, I'm sure. Corn noir! Love among the soybeans! --Calton | Talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, hence "borderline". It could be misconstrued as such. With notability proven (in my opinion), what remains is the tacky memorable line, which probably speaks for the quality of the movie itself.... but dislike of Iowa movies isn't a deletion criterion. :] --Keitei (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. I think Keitei has proved beyond a doubt that the film is notable. Jude (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Pretty obscure, but I have heard of it (no, I'm not from Iowa) because of its creators, the Duck's Breath Mystery Theater, whose alums include Dan Coffey of "Ask Mr. Science" "Ask Dr. Science" and Merle Kessler aka "Ian Shoales" [84]. (Hmm, too many redlinks there). --Calton | Talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, I'm the biased East Iowan author. As far as I'm concerned, the film is notable enough to be on wikipedia. Not only is it listed on IMDB and other film databases, but the film has a strong following in the eastern Iowa area. I know you might not think much of us, but that's still a whole lot of people. It has an especially strong following at Cornell College where there is a special showing once a year. Also, it was released on VHS and DVD, a feat that a lot of the films I've researched on this website never accomplished. All I ask is that you keep an open mind, the amount of hits it gets on Google doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means more needs to be written on the subject. tmopkisn tlka 05:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue is that we don't "write" on the subject. We summarize, paraphrase, compile and quote what others write on the subject. And if by your admission there hasn't been written enough on the movie it simply means could simply mean that it's not encyclopedic by lack of sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop quibbling over semantics. "Writing" is exactly what one does, because writing is a very broad topic that covers many areas. Yes, the goal is for that writing to be what one would find in any encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean that you can accost someone because they dared to being slightly non-specific.--SB | T 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:AGF I'm not accosting anyone, I'm explaining that the expectation that this article be expanded can only be done if based on good sources. That's what we do, or at least strive to. But I corrected my statement where it could be misinterpreted. In any case, I'm still calling on the editors who vote Keep to actually provide good-sourced material on the movie. The best outcome of an AfD is a better article. ~ trialsanderrors 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the offered links a bit on the lean side. If I were to write the article using those sources, I wouldn't know what to write. PS It fails my T&E:510 test, even in its own home region. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keitei. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Keitei -- I wouldn't object to a merge when/if the redlinks that Calton points out are filled with articles, but that's not a topic for discussion at this venue or time.--SB | T 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please do not remove the 'sources tag' - only two sentences are sourced. BlueValour 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources tag has been removed again. There are a number of statements not covered by the references. Removing this tag is unhelpful to a better WP. BlueValour 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The film work of a notable comedy group (why there isn't a Duck's Breath Mystery Theater article is beyond me). Deletion of Zadar would be akin to asking for removal of a random album from the Firesign Theater discography. I'm suspecting the failure of the film is confusing the issue: you haven't seen The Day the Clown Cried, either, but it's an interesting work of a notable author. Chris Stangl 00:41, 29 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 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles[edit]

Apart form the horrible title (which can be fixed) this is part of what appears to be a walled garden surrounding A Course In Miracles. This is a biography of Helen Schucman, it might deserve a mention in that article but I really don't see the value of this as a separate article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are referring to the inclusion of the subtitle in the article title, that is one thing. But if you are referring to the main title, "Absence from Felicity", I don't think that dislike of a book title can be legitimate grounds for deleting a page. The book, by the way, is named after a verse of Shakespeare's Hamlet: "O good Horatio, what a wounded name, Things of Standing thus unknown, shall live behind me! If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, Absent thee from felicity a while (italics mine, AP), And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, To tell thy story." Shakespeare was Helen Schucman's favorite author, and Hemlet was her favorite Shakespeare work. Major chunks of A Course In Miracles are written in Shakespearian blank verse. -- Andrew Parodi 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with per nom. Ste4k 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; most everything about ACIM, apart from the ACIM book, appears to be self-referential and relying on ACIM-linked sources, even the ghits look that way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is getting into ACIMcruft territory. "External reference" status as per Schucman article as it is now is about right for this. --DaveG12345 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow. You guys really don't like ACIM, do you? I would think that being the ONLY biography of this woman, a woman other editors have said is notable, would make this book notable. My mistake. I'm really starting to think I need to exit Wikipedia entirely because I have apparently missed something here. I thought that notable meant, um, notable ... and I thought that meant that it deserved its own page. As for this being a "walled gate", I'm not even sure that that means. But if it means that others can't edit it, that's incorrect. And if it seems that most ACIM-related items are self-referential, that is simply because it is a very new movement that only began in 1975. So, will we have to wait until 2020 before we can make more pages about ACIM-related material? -- Andrew Parodi 09:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambivalent about ACIM. Deeply dislike crap, walled garden articles about deeply, deeply marginal figures. -- GWO
Comment Well, just to let you know, the book is written by a PhD psychologist about another PhD psychologist (who worked for Columbia University and was personally liked by Mother Teresa), and it is named after a verse from Shakespeare. You can consider it "crap" all you like, but if it is "crap", you'd have to admit it is very highbrow crap. And both the author and subject -- Helen Schucman and Kenneth Wapnick -- are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages, which, though nominated for deletion, look as though they may be kept after all. -- Andrew Parodi 03:40, 30 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.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  11:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casey West[edit]

Possible vanity, possible non-notable. The page author is NRAnderson who from the history page can be found that the referenced sweetheart and now husband "Neil" is Neil Anderson. She has an IMBD entry at [85] however it has one supporting role in an independent film. Apparently according to the article she has a couple of commercials too. Nick Y. 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete claims in article are unreferenced, the only verifiable thing we have is one role in an independent film, which is not enough for a Wikipedia entry. —Mets501 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per above. —Centrx→talk • 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --DaveG12345 23:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_27&oldid=1081096327"