Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 30

< June 29	July 1 >

Guide to deletion

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 Keep Eluchil404 20:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prospectus (university)[edit]

This was nominated with {{prod}} by another user. I don't agree with it, and feel that afd is more appropriate. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I came across Prospectus in April, when working on Mutual fund and related articles. Such business-topic articles are poorly represented in Wikipedia. Prospectus (a legal/financial document issued by mutual funds, or is filed with the SEC by individual companies) was lumped together in the same article with school prospectus (sent to prospective university students). The latter was unfamiliar to me, as an American. However, I did a google search on "prospectus" and found it was a common term used, particularly in Europe. So, I split the two uses of "prospectus" into separate articles and created a disambiguation page. I don't know a lot about prospectus (university) but think it should be kept, to explain this use of the term as opposed to the financial/legal term. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to add, a Google search of "prospectus + mutual fund" returns 2,850,000 results, while a search of "prospectus + university" returns 27,500,000 results. So, prospectus (university) seems like something notable. I don't know anything to expand the article, though. --Aude (talk contribs) 04:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef, unless someone expands the article (possibly with the history of prospectus in universities?)--TBCTaLk?!? 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. We're not Wiktionary. I'll change my mind if this gets expanded somehow. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, but that's not the issue. The article's a stub, but it's more than a dicdef. It would be nice if someone expanded it, but if we went around deleting all our stubs, we wouldn't have very many articles left! --David.Mestel 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David.Mestel and Kmf164. College/Universtity prospectus' are well-known in the UK and Europe. I would say possibly add it to articles that need attention as I'm pretty sure there are many users that are able to bring this article above stub status (possibly by a collaborative effort involving WikiProject Universities or WikiProject Schools). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheJC (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 Jun 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep definitely notable, and as TheJC touched upon, prospectus' (prospecti?) are mass distributed by universities and private secondary schools. The article also shows potential to elevate beyond stub status, again per TheJC hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it's a stub at the moment, this can be more than a dicdef if someone were to go into detail about the sort of things that appear in prospectuses (prospecti? ;-) ) in addition to Alternative Prospectuses that students of some colleges put out. Seb Patrick 09:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important set of booklets that deserve an article. I'm sure it will be expanded. --Bduke 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, keep and expand, per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like Prospectus (education), since, as has been mentioned above, documents of this type are not restricted to universities -- they are also used by many other academic institutions, including colleges and private schools. — Haeleth Talk 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename per Haeleth's suggestion. Seems to be a topic that is easily expanded on well past the dictionary definition. Kuru ^talk 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be a notable topic; the article just needs more work. --Doc Tropics 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Zos 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand as soon as possible. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Tachyon01 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Skinnyweed 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that though the article technically can be expanded from a dicdef, is anyone here willing to do it? Unless someone bothers to expand and clean up the article, I'm keeping my vote as delete. (I'm personally not very familiar with the subject, thus I'm not sure how to expand it)--TBCTaLk?!? 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Describes a process in useful terms - not just a definition. Shenme 03:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep general nomination should be discarded. OMEN 03:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep An important and well-known term Lurker 10:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known to me and, no doubt, thousands of other graduates. Without the prospectus, prospective UK university candidates would not know the variety of course structures and subjects that the UK educational system offers. They must have a rich history and are deserving of an encyclopaedic article. -- Alias Flood 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above comments. Timrollpickering 09:35, 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. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lethbridge Cowper[edit]

An upstanding member of Australian society, but I don't see anything encyclopedic in this bio NawlinWiki 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Sir Norman wins this one, nomination withdrawn per arguments below. NawlinWiki 15:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Wikipedia is not an obituary site. Most obituaries reported in newspapers are of people not notable enough for Wikipedia Bwithh 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:BIO. No evidence of notability, only 7 Google results [1], some of which are from Wikipedia. Possibly also redirect to Australian Club--TBCTaLk?!? 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Google hits are a relevent criteria for someone who lived before the internet era. Kevin 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Law Society is still active, I believe that the Internet is still a relevant criteria for this discussion--TBCTaLk?!? 10:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Eminent Australian lawyer and President of the Law Society. Lack of Google hits due to the fact that he died in 1987. Besides, the Google hits he does get include references in ministerial speeches at a lecture named in his honour. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to the above, I have read an article in the Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society published in 2000. He was the senior partner in Allen, Allen & Hemsley, Australia's leading law firm. In her book The Allens Affair, Valerie Lawson wrote Before the reign of Sir Norman Lethbridge Cowper, Allen Allen & Hemsley was a club. A good, solid gentlemen's club where the door was bolted to all but family and friends. After Norman Cowper swept the dust from the club's corners, the door was thrown open to talent. Aliens became the hub of a wheel, a network, reaching out to the world. Good schools and the right attitude still counted. But what mattered most was hard work and driven talent. Under the reign of Cowper, from the 1930s to the late 1960s, nepotism gave way to brilliance, drudgery gave way to energy.. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some notability asserted (president of peak lawyer's body in NSW and other roles), would like to see more if there is anything. SM247^{My Talk} 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable? I strongly disagree. Btw, he has 229 google hits, not seven. --David.Mestel 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I used his full name in my Google search, which would explain the difference in the number of results. Either way, 229 results is not a lot for someone notable. Also, Cowper is not the president of the Law Society, but of the New South Wales Law Society. (Note: Since I am not an expert on the subject, I can't tell if the latter is a different organization or merely a branch of the Law Society, though either way they seem to be different)--TBCTaLk?!? 09:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: president of the Law Society is notable. -- Synapse 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not president of the highly notable Law Society, he's president of the not really notable New South Wales Law Society. -- GWO
- Huh? Which Law Society are you talking about? That article makes it quite clear that the law societies in each jurisdiction are separate. JPD (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about the New South Wales Law Society. Your question would be better addressed to those who said You're suggesting that a president of the Law Society is non-notable, or president of the Law Society is notable. -- GWO
    - You said "he's not president of the highly-notable Law Society", but there isn't only one Law Society, as that article says. He was president of the Law Society in his jurisdiction, which is notable. I see nothing to suggest that the people who said this was notable didn't understand perfectly well what "president of the Law Society" means - it is only delete votes that have suggested it could mean anything else, and at least one of those admitted that they didn't know what it was. JPD (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup notable enough for me hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have started work on cleaning it up and establishing notability. For the record, Allen Allen & Hemsley is now Allens Arthur Robinson and has offices in eight Asia-Pacific countries. [2]. Cowper played a critical role in its expansion. A Google News search shows that the company is actively involved in the merger of OneSteel and Smorgon Steel and representing Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary GeneralRe. [3]

Capitalistroadster 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster. President of a Law Society and a founder of the United Australia Party should be enough notability! JPD (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Clearly meets our de facto inclusion standards. Not that that's saying much. — Haeleth Talk 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: cleanup and expand with more citations. Zos 18:44, 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. W.marsh 00:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ChicoProject, LLC.[edit]

An article about very small consulting company in a small California city, growing cruftier by the minute (it describes their dress code, for gawd's sake). They get 44 unique Google hits, so it doesn't look like they're that big even in Butte County. Calton | Talk 00:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. As nom mentioned, very few Google results [4]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:CORP. -- Mikeblas 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, vanispamcrufisement. SM247^{My Talk} 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that they pass WP:CORP Kevin 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, prod was removed (by author) with the talk page comment "The ChicoProject is a vastly growing business in northern california, and they have helped Chico State University's business program grow immensely, their have been alot of requests for an informative Wiki article about where they came from and exactly what they do. I tried to keep the article very unbiased and i'm not in any way trying to advertise for The ChicoProject." Kuru ^talk 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to WP:CORP nor could I find anything that would qualify. Despite the author's claims, this does read like an ad: "well known for their beautiful logos and Web work." Kuru ^talk 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:NN, and also as per above. Zos 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many of these nn articles springing up -- Alias Flood 22:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity article. Tachyon01 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much to add on the 15 previous good reasons. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waste of server space, per above opinions. Alphachimp ^talk 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
move and delet not encyclopedia move to a user page or to Myspace.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly veiled spamvertising (still) and the cruftiest spam I've seen, at that. (Dress code, indeed.) Grand master ka 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the reasons everyone has stated above DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 10:39, 5 May 2024 UTC [refresh]
I changed the article to be a short blurb about the corporation until, i am going through the WP:Corp, and other articles to ensure that i do the article correctly. ~Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.175.40 (talk • contribs) 07:55 5 July 2006

Guy, the guideline is about the notability (and encyclopedic worthiness) of the SUBJECT ITSELF, not about whether the article has its i's dotted and its t's crossed. And your company does NOT meet WP:CORP standards, period/full-stop, and all the buffing and polishing of the article won't change that one bit. --Calton | Talk 08:19, 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. ugen64 03:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of the Beast[edit]

Unreleased homebrew game. It's crystal ball and possibly non-notable as well. Ace of Sevens 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Only 100 relevant Google results [5]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 896 for "Age of the Beast" "Beats of Rage". [6]. MetaFox 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, non-anything really Kevin 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's extremely notable. It's the sequel to the immensely popular Beats of Rage. Beats of Rage has spawned multiple engine derivitives (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR) for multiple platforms and millions of downloads between the platforms and derivitives combined - and this game and engine is the next step. The creators of the game - Senile Team - have a ton of fans. MetaFox 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a must,this is a game long time in the making and very revolutionary as homebrew 2d fighting games go. theres tons of fans who download and enjoy making games with the original engine (BOR) and its cousins (OpenBOR, BORHed, OpenHOR), it will be no diferent with this game,people will love it and it be a mistake to remove it from here. So please leave it inn, thank you. AlexDC22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .
Keep After 'Beats of Rage' this will set the standard of homebrew games. It would be ridiculous to erase this article. BDBor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.162.210.232 (talk • contribs) .
It "will"? I think you mean it "might". You have no evidence to support your claim: past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The game might never even be finished. The ridiculous thing would be if Wikipedia published unsubstantiated hype about games that don't even have a release date yet. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. It is impossible to verify the claims in this article from reliable sources: we have only the authors' word for it. So the whole thing is crystal-balling, and cannot be kept.
Note that having the article deleted now will in no way prevent it being recreated once the game has been released. — Haeleth Talk 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a video available at the homepage showcasing the features of the game, and Age of the Beast: Special Edition was demoed briefly at the Midwest Gaming Classic on June 3, 2006. This makes the game just as notable for wikipedia inclusion as any unreleased video game that was demoed at the E3 gaming convention (and there's an abundance of those in wikipedia). - MetaFox 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the release date isn't set yet, doesn't make it a crystal ball. Muerto —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.211.143.61 (talk • contribs) .

Also they have a good track record wich should indicate that this game is the real thing....my GOD, they are the makers of beats of rage... alexdc22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.255.157 (talk • contribs) .

Keep

Despite of what the 'Warning' says: Of course I came here because a friend told me that the Wikipedia entry of Age of the Beast might be deleted. And why shouldn't I make my voice heard ?

Some Facts: There is something like a release date set: Though annouced for 2006, a release in 2007 is very likely going to happen. One got to consider it's a game by semi-professional independent programmers, not a big budget major company. There will be a commercial release for SEGA Dreamcast. It's announced as a Special Edition that will peacefully coexist next to the freeware download - but still with a pressed run of estimated 7000+ units.

As others already pointed out, there is a video available showcasing the game in action: http://www.senileteam.com/downloads.php?d=12

Obviously the game is using all original graphics, sounds and music along with an extremely customizable and powerful 2D game engine. To really achieve commercial quality takes a good bit of time for a small group of people, working on the game in their spare time.

It's predecessor Beats of Rage was ported to an insane number of platforms (there even is an AMIGA and Nintendo DS port), and the SEGA Dreamcast version was downloaded several tenthousand times - alone from the website I am involved in (http://www.DCEvolution.net).

Three years after its initial release, Beats of Rage still sees updates (OpenBoR, Linux & PSP port), and there still are several promising projects in the works based on the Beats of Rage game engine:

Sailor Moon Plus (freeware, Remake of the Sailor Moon game series by BANDAI): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=364

Rage of the Streets (freeware, Remake of SEGA's Streets of Rage) http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1140255667

Yumi: Samurai Warrior (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://borrevolution.vg-network.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=366

GAGA Wing (original game, release details not set): http://www.dcemu.co.uk/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26951

RAEL: The Redemption (original game, commercial release sheduled for 2007): http://dreamzoneboards.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?board=rael_for - DCEvoCE 16:49, 30 June 2006 (CET)

Comment - you have mis-read the 'warning'. It is intended to provoke discussion rather than simple 'keep' votes without clarification. Detailed comments such as yours are utterly welcome. Kuru ^talk 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia, she ain't a crystal ball, possibly vanity or advertising as well, highly nonnotable game - I'll quit here. WilyD 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to believe that even if this article wasn't crystal ballism- even if the game was released now- it would still be quite non-notable. I greatly respect DCEvoCE's comments, but they haven't sufficiently convinced me of notability for this particular game. -- Kicking222 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an engine evolution and spiritual sequel of a game that has had millions of downloads. The video preview has been downloaded thousands of times, and the commercial special edition was previewed at one of the largest classic gaming conventions around as I mentioned above. Senile Team has a huge and loyal fan following, and has been covered in print magazines ranging from Pure to Retrogamer. I don't see how anyone can say it's not notable. - MetaFox 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. BJK 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Maybe worthy of an article one day but not yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- Alias Flood 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tachyon01 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Senile Team, and merge the summary paragraph into the Senile Team article. The content related to Age of the Beast does not yet warrant its own article because it is too speculative, but it is relevant to note what Senile Team is currently working on. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOFT quite clearly among other faults. I've also tagged Senile Team for deletion so I don't believe in the redirect. Also a note to the above people suggesting to keep: please note that no one here is proposing deletion on the grounds that this will not be a super fantastic popular revolutionnary kick-ass zillion downloads game. We are mostly supporting deletion because this game currently has no notability outside of its restricted fanbase. Pascal.Tesson 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because a game is not mainstream, doesn't make the fanbase restricted. Age of the Beast is one of the most anticipated games in the retro gaming community, and the retro gaming community makes up a large portion of the regular gaming community. The game was listed in the popular UK print magazine Retrogamer in issue number 8 as being one of the most anticipated upcoming games for the Sega Dreamcast. This article should have been tagged for notability instead of being tagged for deletion, because with a small bit of article expansion, acceptable references can be made that will show that the game is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. MetaFox 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per well reasoned nom Alphachimp ^talk 03:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE guidelines. May be valid later, too early to include at this time. Denaar 18:07, 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. Proto///type 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of beat 'em ups[edit]

There's no article here. If done correctly, it will effectively be a duplicate of <<Category:Beat 'em ups>>. I'd support a re-direct. Ace of Sevens 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list cruf (I changed the text in the nom to remove the category template) --Pboyd04 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Mikeblas 02:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, made redundant due to Category:Beat 'em ups--TBCTaLk?!? 02:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, redundant to a category. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 08:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Made redundant by the category, but would be worth keeping if it were turned into an article discussing the format, history and style of beat 'em ups. Oh, wait, there already is one. Delete. Seb Patrick 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; lists are useful when they do things categories can't, but this one doesn't and therefore isn't. — Haeleth Talk 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, pointless, et cetera WilyD 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purely and simpley because lists are NOT redundent to categories. Note to closing admin, this vote probably violates wiki:point. Thought I'd mention it before anyone else did. 88.107.129.242 18:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (oops, not signed in, sorry, "Jcuk")[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, completely redundant. --Tachyon01 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Beat 'em up. If this info should be in wikipedia, I think it should go here. Green caterpillar 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, please. We don't want this one standing up again. Shenme 03:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep categories are not a replacements for lists, especially those that contain red links. Grue 13:36, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shift (music)[edit]

Nonnotable electronic music group; article is cut and pasted from band's website, [7] NawlinWiki 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawing nomination, nice work by User:Grutness. NawlinWiki 09:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per ~~WP:BAND~~ and WP:COPYVIO. ~~Found two bands on allmusic called Red Shift, but neither seem to be relevant.~~ Nevermind, Red Shift seems to be an album [8] created by a moderately notable artist [9].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd rather have the article rewritten from the ground up; please note that I have no objection to an article on this subject in encyclopedic form, as there really isn't much in the way of notability concern here per Tree Biting Conspiracy. Captainktainer * Talk 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Grutness rewrote the article, and as long as the source is put in, I'm thinking Keep. Captainktainer * Talk 04:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BAND, WP:VAIN, WP:NN. Zos 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Keep: needs more work thought :p Zos 15:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:everything it applies to. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC) - Changing to keep after Grutness rewrite. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to new article. That is, this is a copyvio and should go, but the band are definitely notable enough for an article so I'd be very happy to see a real article in its place. Both "Faultline" and "Siren" are very good albums, BTW. Grutness...wha? 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten the article, removing the copyvio and making it generally more encyclopedic. Keep now. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a little more as per suggestions from Captainktainer. BTW, the band's name is "Redshift", so if kept this will need to be moved to the proper title. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 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. W.marsh 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redstarcanada[edit]

Nonnotable Canadian record label that releases all its music for free; 25 unique Ghits NawlinWiki 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. I couldn't find anything on allmusic, and as nom mentioned, very few Google results [10]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as User:Tree Biting Conspiracy said. It's not necessary article in Wikipedia. *~Daniel~* 02:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 18:53, 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. --Joanne B 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum aesthetics[edit]

136 matches on Google. Sentences like, "Quantum physicists these days often rely on the poetry and fiction to illustrate the subatomic nature of the universe". Reads badly aswell as un-sourced. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and possibly also WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 02:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:NEO, and WP:V. Essays don't belong on Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essays are verboten. SM247^{My Talk} 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the theory exists, see e.g. [11], so it's potentially verifiable and so forth. Notability remains a concern, as does the fact that this is an essay not an article. — Haeleth Talk 13:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Zos 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a review of a book called El Cadaver de Balzac: Una visión cuántica de la Literatura y el Arte (which I would guess means something like Balzac's Corpse: A quantum vision of literature and art). The article is also a copyright violation from [12]. Jll 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible original research or copyright violation. --Tachyon01 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is so amazing. The article talks about the writer, the other writer, another writer, effects, affects, politics, ... but nothing concrete about "Quantum aesthetics". It's pure gush, and likely copyvio and OR at the same time. Shenme 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum Delete and also consider supporting the deletion of article Gregorio Morales by the same editor. Pascal.Tesson 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BJOTD maybe (but definitely not funny). LotLE×talk 07:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 12:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Computerjoe 's talk 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Tapir Terrific 22:59, 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 Deleted by Kimchi.sg as {{db-author}}. -- JLaTondre 03:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. Joseph Hoffmann[edit]

appears to be non-notable professor and may violate WP:VAIN as the main author is User:RJOSEPHHOFFMANN Carlossuarez46 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy Fails WP:PROF. Bwithh 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is meant as cross reference/information only re C S E R. "Non-notable" has been settled in previous discussion.--RJOSEPHHOFFMANN 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ludicrous; Hoffmann is an internationally known biblicist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.7.187 (talk • contribs)

Note Author has repeatedly blanked the AfD notice and this article. Fan1967 02:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Author has blanked the article requesting deletion. So tagged. Fan1967 02:07, 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 merge or redirect.

Great Mighty Poo[edit]

Okay, perhaps he's the second most famous singing poo in popular culture. And the scene is funny. Still, I don't think it qualifies for an article. UsaSatsui 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conker's Bad Fur Day. NawlinWiki 01:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge One of the more memorable video-game bosses. I get 16,800 Google hits for "Great Mighty Poo" (in quotes). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not interesting, enriching, or even entertaining. -- Mikeblas 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Conker's Bad Fur Day--TBCTaLk?!? 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conker's Bad Fur Day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Conkers.Zos 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect See Boss FAQ at GameFaqs for verification. A redirect won't hurt anybody. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Conker's Bad Fur Day -- Alias Flood 23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question You know, I figured a redirect would be the right thing here...if I feel that way, do I need to bring it to AfD at all? Or can I just make it a redirect? And while I'm here, while I think a redirect is fine, I don't think there should be a "megre", since the article is...well...crap, and there's very little information to merge anyway. --UsaSatsui 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I would like for it to be kept (so that the Conker series has several character articles), I would prefer if a page for Conker characters is made instead of a redirect to one of the games. SNS 17:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment - having an article around so that another has more links is NOT a good idea. However, for your second suggestion, BE BOLD! Start a new article. You might want to look at Characters of 8-Bit Theater as an example. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Even if I did make a "Characters in the Conker series" article, wouldn't I have to wait until the discussion here closes before I can change this article into a redirect? SNS 18:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. ugen64 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate Document No. 43[edit]

There is no reference to this document in any government website, only on anti-Bush blogs. --Kainaw ^(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If User:NarrowPathPilgrim or somebody doesn't come up with some verifiable documentation or evidence on this pretty quick, then I'd say it's speedy delete. AnonMoos 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unverifiable, more than likely a hoax. Possible G1. This user has a history of making controversial edits and violating WP:POINT, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The original user (NarrowPathPilgrim) has almost exclusively edited Federal Governmental articles and always from a strong consipracy theorist/tax protestor PoV, see for example their edits to Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and The Law that Never Was. Also, based on the edit to driver's licence, I wonder if they're a Zephram Stark sockpuppet. 68.39.174.238 06:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this document is referenced by a lot of conspiracy theorists etc., then it might conceivably be notable even if it isn't real. I'd want to see some solid, reliable references to prove that before I'd consider voting to keep, though. Non-notable conspiracy theories and hoaxes don't belong here. — Haeleth Talk 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like hoax, also WP:NN, and WP:V; reminds me of infowars.com/alex jones! Zos 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. --Tachyon01 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consipracy nonsense. Gamaliel 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was that the command to kill the Jedi? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:27, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 16:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terraspirit Swordsman[edit]

Apparently a manga character, but no context at all in article and nothing on Google but this article and its mirrors NawlinWiki 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's been plenty of time with requests for cleanup and context. -- Mikeblas 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT and WP:V. Only 719 Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alias Flood 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason as everyone above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:28, 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. Avi 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Awe[edit]

I quote: "The Chronicles of Awe is a fan fiction on the Lionhead Discussion Boards. It is writen by a happy senior member named HFB." I think that pretty much speaks for itself; fan fiction is very, very rarely notable, and there's nothing to indicate that this instance of it is somehow exceptional. Also unsourced, vanityish, etc. -- standard stuff, really. -- Captain Disdain 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. -- Captain Disdain 01:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was something to do while creating more ideas for the story. Sorry for any inconvenience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.70.157 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 June 2006

Well, there's no harm done, so don't worry about it -- it's just not encyclopedic material, that's all. -- Captain Disdain 01:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fan fiction. No Google results [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fanfiction doesn't belong here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above n nom. Zos 19:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reason as everyone above (WP:FICT). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:29, 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.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffus (Irish band)[edit]

non-notable band, frequently edited with copyvio information BigHaz 01:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, no relevant allmusic profile. Only 358 relevant Google results [15]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. jni 06:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{db-band}} candidates, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NMG. PJM 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Joelmills 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per aero (I can't spell the rest of it) Alphachimp ^talk 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds more like a promotional article than an encyclopaedic one as to be the latter, it would require notability; something that this subject lacks. -- Alias Flood 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an anonymous user removed the AfD template on the page and re-edited it with copyvio information. I've replaced it and warned the vandal, but I would suggest that what appears to be a consensus here should be acted upon sooner rather than later. BigHaz 02:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Joanne B 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rockajazz[edit]

Neologism. Searching the web for this term results in three hits. One is Wikipedia, one is on one of the artist's web pages. Mikeblas 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also OR. Tychocat 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, only 17 Google results [16]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. OMEN 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with tremendous gusto. W guice 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NNN. PJM 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete same reason as everyone above. ALSO, note that the Talk:Rockajazz page is a planted question looking for more info, by the editor who started the whole article! -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:31, 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 kept No consensus Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guam rivers[edit]

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No notability given for the list, stated or implied. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the above reasons:

List of rivers in U.S. insular areas

List of canals in the United States

List of islands in Massachusetts

I'm adding List of hospitals in Massachusetts, since it is tagged and links to this discussion, but I'm not proposing its deletion. Afonso Silva 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor appears to like making lists. There are others, but I figure these will do for test cases, and I frankly fatigued out with the process. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find geographic lists useful as a cross-reference. A list of PokeMon characters or Simpsons jokes? Those, I'd delete. -- Mikeblas 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of islands in Mass - Or at least trim it to a smaller set of them. It looks like every rock found in a puddle of water is listed there. Most of them seem to be barren and uninhabited. The rest all seem legitimate and useful enough to me. Wickethewok 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are useful lists well worth keeping. For mine, lists of significant geographical features are generally notable. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. These lists exist for many features of many countries. They are a useful method of listing the features and subdividing them/further describing them in ways which categories cannot. They are also extremely useful since in many cases there will be numerous redlinks which - of course - cannot be categorised. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful lists that can help readers navigate through articles on related rivers--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the list of islands in Massachusetts, the list of rivers in U.S. insular areas, and the list of Guam rivers, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Guam river article is also redundant to the list of rivers article. Keep the list of canals. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Guam rivers, as its redundant, and~~ the Massachussetts islands for reasons above. Keep the canals. Abstain on the insular rivers. GassyGuy 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below discussion with Sjakkalle: Keep the list of rivers in insular areas and redirect Guam rivers to that article.
Delete and categorise and the same with the others. Viridae ^Talk 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not all that happy with the list as it is since it is a bunch of unannotated redlinks, but since we don't have any articles on any of these rivers, it is not redundant with a category (since we don't have the category). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also I want to affirm my wish to keep List of islands in Massachusetts as well. at the moment it looks like a reasonable work in progress to produce a table over terrain and population which makes the list useful on its own.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, but it replicates information on List of rivers in U.S. insular areas. GassyGuy 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas, it sure won't be duplicated... If that is a problem I think it best to keep List of rivers in U.S. insular areas and merge/redirect List of Guam rivers with that article. Deleting these will cost us valid information until we get enough articles to make a meaningful and useful category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please note that I didn't express an opinion to delete the insular ones. I was just pointing out what it duplicated. GassyGuy 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for pointing it out. I agree with you that List of Guam rivers is a duplicate, albeit one which would be a useful redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see three pages listed at the top, in addition to Guam rivers. How is it that I got here from List of hospitals in Massachusetts when it does not appear anywhere on this page? That's the article I'm really here voting to keep; in addition to Mass. islands now that I see it up there.
Comment. There is no real connection between any of the articles nominated other than that they are all lists. The nominations for each should be separate as the debate will be rather disorganised causing possible difficulties for the admins. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The five lists list things that are certainly finite. Obviously, there is not an infinite number of rivers in Guam nor an infinite number of islands in Massachusetts, so, the lists are useful and can be expanded with further info. Afonso Silva 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographic lists are useful. Kirjtc2 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. I've used many such lists to help fill out missing articles on geographic features. When the article list is populated or stubbed out, then add a category and drop it. Kuru ^talk 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can't question the lists as being useful or finite to particular editors. I do question the basic notability and encyclopedic relevance of the articles, which I believe is to the point. These articles only exist as lists, since if you stubbed the individual rivers there'd be no reason to have the stubs at all. I have a toolbox that's been very useful to me (and has finite contents), but I don't see how that rates inclusion in WP. (sorry for the belated appearance, I wasn't aware that it was done for afd nominators to also vote on their afds.) Tychocat 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that there's nothing verifiable or notable about any of the redlinked items in any of the unreleated lists you've proposed for deletion? Or are you saying that there's not content to these lists orther than being lists? I'm afraid your toolbox example does not seem to be very clear; your garage toolbox has done little to help editors on wikipedia, and would continue to be useless if it were included here - are you saying that these lists are also not helpful to finding articles to create and helping editors? There would seem to be quite a bit more to some of these lists than just 'a list' as well; the List of canals in the United States is grouped by canal functionality and operating state and also has some notations included as well. Could you please exapnd on your point a little further? I'm trying to understand your position. Kuru ^talk 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm also a little concerned that the discussion here is getting a little fragmented since each list would appear to have different problems; and with the exception of the insular/guam issue - they're all unrealted. Kuru ^talk 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying the articles listed for deletion only exist as lists. There's no notability stated or implied for any of the listed items, except as readers apparently have for them on a personal basis. I point out there's no reason at all to have articles on most of the individual items, they only have relevance as items on a list. And being on a list does not make them notable, nor are lists intrinsically notable. Tychocat 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I'm still not sure of your point here: 75% of the items in the List of canals in the United States already have articles which are more than established. I could probably create articles for the remainder that meet the notability standards for geographic locations fairly easily. The list complies with the guidelines at WP:LIST or WP:LISTS. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of geographical lists along similar lines. Again, what is your guideline for the notability of a list? All items must be notable? Most? Which guidelines are you using? Please don't think I'm being combative - that's not my intent, I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reference work so I would hope to find info on rocks, islands, rivers. That is part of our role. The lists are very well ordered and highly discriinate, but could use better references. --JJay 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per various other keep votes. --M e rovingian {T C @} 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but preferably Categorize. These seem useful enough, but should really be Categories. Bwithh 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These lists are crucial parts of what makes Wikipedia useful. Lists are articles, and are not the same as categories. Fg2 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this lists can be valuable and are above the usual listcruft. Peyna 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is beyond me how these can be seen as indiscriminate. In the case of the Guam list, I doubt that articles would be appropriate, but an enhanced list showing length, precise location etc certainly would be. Osomec 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete. An56 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the added note that these type of nominations should be seperated. Yamaguchi先生 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree. This deal of multiple articles under a single nomination is bizarre. Especially since some articles pointing to this deletion page weren't even listed on this page initially. Sahasrahla 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vegaswikian 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of canals. It isn't redundant with the category because not all of the canals have articles yet, and the list is useful to someone looking for a canal -- it at least acknowledges the existence of a canal. (As an aside, I came upon that article because I was seeing if we had an article on Duck Creek Aqueduct or Whitewater Canal.) Delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas -- it's redundant with List of Guam rivers (which I vote to keep), List of Puerto Rico rivers (not up for deletion), and List of United States Virgin Islands rivers and streams (also not up for deletion). As far as List of islands in Massachusetts, I prefer to keep it, but the entries about "minor rocks" can probably go. I doubt we'll ever need an article about a minor rock. --Elkman 02:40, 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 userfy. Roy A.A. 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory P. Leichner[edit]

Hoax biography - nothing on Google or Amazon for this supposedly famous philosopher who has written 32 books. Funny that no university affiliation is mentioned, either. NawlinWiki 01:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What a remarkable coincidence that author's ID is "gregory" spelled backward. Fan1967 01:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Checked google scholar as well--zippo. Vanity hoax.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 03:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN. Zos 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity article/hoax. --Tachyon01 23:19, 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. --Joanne B 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slantize[edit]

Non-notable musician. Mikeblas 02:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Only 896 Google results [17] and no allmusic profile.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete word AdamBiswanger1 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as yet another nn musician Alphachimp ^talk 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 16:34, 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. --Joanne B 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowville Productions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB, however you'd like to slice it. Alexa rank around 6.7 million. Mikeblas 02:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CORP--TBCTaLk?!? 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Alphachimp ^talk 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you vist there website and look at there number of hits this year *Over 1 million* and view there artist list they quailfy as a record company *even if it only sells rights* and as a major website. They also reresent DZK a major internet based underground indie raper and there for should be noted on wikipedia --Kylehamilton 04:05, 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. --Joanne B 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breed Different Media[edit]

Seems to be a completely non-notable company/zine. Only 17 unique ghits, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Delete with all due haste. Mak (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, prodded by me and de-prodded by author. Mak (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Alexa ranking of 2,138,185 [18]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy. William Pietri 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.Bjones 05:13, 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. --Joanne B 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Snips[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, he has no releases on a major label. I spot-checked a couple of collaboration claims and couldn't find references to them on the web. Nothing for sale at Amazon.com. Not in AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. As nom mentioned, no allmusic or amazon profile and few relevant Google results [19]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity advertisement for a non-notable DJ. SmartGuy 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, DJ Snips is the producer for Lowkey, who quite clearly fits the criteria. 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeanold Viskersenn (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Lowkey's three releases (as listed in the Lowkey article) are mix tapes. The article further says he hasn't yet released a "proper" album. It doesn't mention winning any awards, and so on -- so I'm not sure I understand how he "clearly mets the criteria". -- Mikeblas 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The issue at hand, though, is DJ Snips. His noteriety and work is unverifiable. -- Mikeblas 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Yeanold Viskersenn (who is the original article author). -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:33, 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 deleted. There's no assertion of notability present. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous Poets[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, with no albums on a major label (or notable independent label). Not at AllMusic. Mikeblas 02:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. A few of the members may be mildly notable, but as nom mentioned, no allmusic profile and no albums on any notable label.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 05:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off with your censorship. they exist, dont they?

Of course. I exist, and I shouldn't get an article yet. Speedy delete as completely non-notable (and no assertion of notability in the article.) Most of these rappers don't look notable either. Grand master ka 05:21, 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. --Joanne B 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thurogood Wordsmith[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, no allmusic profile. Only 72 Google results [20]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. Zos 05:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 07:06, 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. --Joanne B 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grape joke[edit]

No sources, all original research it seems. I didn't really find anything of interest while Googling this - I got more results googling arbitrary things like "Pants joke". I don't really see why grapes are special in this case. Provide some sources or something to convince me or else I think its worth a delete. --Wickethewok

Delete per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NEO. As nom mentioned, there are few, if any, relevant Google results [21].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism referring to a non-notable type of joke. SM247^{My Talk} 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:V, and WP:OR. Possibly WP:NFT, as well. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's not verifiable, but I did find it amusing enough. GassyGuy 04:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: too many reasons; see above. Zos 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's purple and Delete? Peeper 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't been able to find use of this term anywhere. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:59, 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. ugen64 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedin David (M.D.,Ph.D.)[edit]

There are no results for this person and the article should be clearly deleted. However, the article seems to contain some scientific-sounding text (I don't have time to read it). Was wondering if anyone wanted this content moved anywhere. Oldak Quill 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:VANITY. Half the article also seems to be an original research essay on biology (or something related to it). Only 3 Google results [22], one of which is from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment scientific content appears to be a copyvio from here, although the site seems to be down at present. Ziggurat 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, fails WP:BIO, contains copyvio. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking at the contributions of the user who created the page... he appears to have uploaded imags taken from astralsport.com. So I visted that site, and found that it is basically webforum... one of the stories there (front page second one down)... or here is a direct link... is a story titled: "Formation of the anaphylactic and delay types of hyper sensibility zones at limiting for the organism physical loadings in sports of high achievements.", followed by the comment "published on Wikipedia". I can't find any mention of Nedin David on google (note: this edit, shortly before the creation of this article, added him to List of immunologists -- a list meant for noted immunologists. Without more information, I have to dismiss this as original research and the subject of the article as non-notable... and given the style, quite possibly WP:VANITY, WP:AUTO too. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity/selling something. Seidenstud 22:09, 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 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global funk radio [edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Only 546 Google results [23] and an Alexa ranking of 1,065,836 [24]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable web. -- Mikeblas 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:05, 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 16:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Old School Radio Hour[edit]

Reason the page should be deleted:

This page is unverifiable and possibly autobiographical, no reputible resources are listed resulting in pure original research. Ste4k 03:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable internet radio program on a non-notable website. Only 8 Google results [25]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC Computerjoe 's talk 16:34, 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 16:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IQcuties[edit]

Contested PROD. This article has no verifiable sources, and reads like an advertisement. See also a comment by an outside user at Talk:High IQ society. Ziggurat 03:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. No Alexa ranking [26]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Rhobite 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Em-jay-es 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance claimed or established. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site is signicant in that it is the first online dating site to utilize a test for the selection of members. Geneffects 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you verify that with reliable sources? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but not directly. A search of DMOZ for dating sites mentioning a exam or test does not turn up any that are requirements for membership. Many sites have tests, but they still accept 100% of the applicants. I have further verified this with exhaustive research Geneffects 13:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - eHarmony doesn't accept all applicants. But even if iqcuties were the only site to have a test, the article would still need to be deleted because it is not verifiable. Rhobite 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Guinnog 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No different from "graduate only" sites. --Richhoncho 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Tree Biting Conspiracy, and Sjakkalle. William Pietri 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if something is unique, and a good idea, it is not necessarily notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seidenstud (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 June 2006 UTC.
Keep I think the concept of a dating site using an IQ test is sufficiently notable to warrant a WP article. Lurker 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Geneffects has posted a rebuttal at Talk:IQcuties. Ziggurat 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just some website. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:31, 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. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly closed, restoring. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eon8[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

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

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

Some website thats only claim to notability is the fact that no one knows what it is for. Sounds like a brilliant marketing tactic to me. Since the only sources are the pure speculation of blogs and alike this site itself clearly fails WP:WEB.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep*** This was a test for people's minds, it should be stated on the page, and the last line should be finished.

Delete: Possible attempt at hijacking Wikipedia for viral marketing purposes. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=eon8 forth time this page has been recreated (I nominated for a speedy delete the first time I noticed it). This time by User:Angelinacarmen whose account I suspect to be a sock puppet. Unless "eon8" hits the mainstream press like I Love Bees a few years ago, I think it might be wise to place a page creation block on eon8 and eon8.com.

Fails WP:WEB.
Google hits ("eon8"): 1,750
Alexa Traffic Rank: 1,323,027.

-- Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Hooray!</sarcasm> YTMND fad in progress: eon8theinvestigation.ytmnd.com/ Expect more sock puppets on their way. -- Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 04:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, non-notable webpage. However, may change vote depending on what happens on July 1st, be it cyberterrorism or the release of a new video game product. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm being sarcastic :D )--TBCTaLk?!? 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As this site has not yet been confirmed to be any kind of advertising I belive this page should remain alive. Even if it is confirmed to be an advertisement it is not going to further promotion to the bussiness, and becuase it has become something of a phonomenon in terms of peeking peoples interest I believe the EON8 page should remain as a source of information of this phonomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.118.171 (talk • contribs)

User has only 3 edits, either to the article or this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable webpage, horrible marketing ploy. I support protecting it from re-creation if it gets deleted, especially if July 1 comes and goes and nothing happens. In fact, if July 1 comes and goes without anything happened, I'd support speedy deletion per A1, since it will have turned out to be patent nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable, it's a big deal on the internet, there's a lot of information on it, and most importantly, we're about to find out what it is in 23 hours. TheDavesr 04:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, go read WP:WEB and then tell me how it meets such criteria of notability. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB miserably. Notability will be created in the mind of some pseudo-cult that, for whatever reasons, gives the website attention when it merits none, but unless the media covers it thoroughly, then it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. GassyGuy 04:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown ends, at least. I personally know of SO many people on the internet who have asked me what's going on and it's so much easier to link to this page. There's no reason to not leave it up for one more day and see what the impact is after the occurance.--CountCrazy007 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the countdown ends, what to do from there depends on what happens (if anything). --Bky1701 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as par it being useless. --Bky1701 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now lets just wait a day, then we can better decide what to do. --Knife720 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edit is to this AfD. Kimchi.sg 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after it turns out to be nothing (which will be before the AFD is scheduled to close). --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the countdown ends or more information is shed on this. It seems that this thing is getting more and more attention, thanks to the help of the YTMND made about it. And, since there's no real way of knowing what this thing is until this countdown ends, waiting seems to be the logical choice.--GenericnameI 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's only edit is to this AfD. -- Netsnipe 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until July 1 if anything happens. Douglasr007 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until July 1. It doesn't hurt anything, and it may end up changing the situation.-Mance 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now, per nom. Em-jay-es 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. website promo. jni 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete painfully non-notable. fails WP:anything --Peripitus (Talk) 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it is something non-notable, it has already had a significant amount of fame 66.188.253.213 06:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be at least an attempt at another I Love Bees. It doesn't hurt to be here, and its talk page can serve to allow discussion. Parcelbrat 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It's growing prominence and popularity on the Internet, but I dunno... —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 06:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in some circles. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self-promotion of non-notable website. OverlordQ 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that blatant self-promotion? It's written NPOV... Redwolf24 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's intriguing, all the info (what little there was) was congruent to its sources, and until July 1 (or June 30) we won't know anything about it's true validity as a website counting down an actual :thing:. 71.83.255.141 08:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can you say this doesn't merit an entry while ilovebees does? This has become a very notable website in the past few days and should stay. --Phoenix Hacker 08:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, ilovebees has recieved a considerable amount of media attention, while the above website hasn't--TBCTaLk?!? 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least until the end of the countdown. Has gained plenty of popularity recently - just check the referrers list they have up. I've seen it talked about quite a few places, as well, and we won't know what it is until the countdown is up. --Guess Who 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it wasn't notable before, it is now.... 24.9.10.235 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Short lived fad. If it sticks around more than a month, might be worth an article. -- GWO
Keep - Not only will something happen soon, there's a bit of fame to it already on the internet. There's no need to have another "oops, we almost deleted something that was so popular it was put into a movie" debacle like what happened with Juggernaut Bitch. Scumbag 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the countdown's over, I'm curious to see exactly what this site is for.
Wait - at least until the countdown ends, this is getting mentions on many forums, and if something worthwhile gravitates from this, then keep the article. --Zimbabweed 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown reaches zero, then either Keep if it is not a hoax, or Delete if it is. Will (message me!) 09:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the timer reaches zero, and we can fully understand the purpose of the website. If it turns out to be something significant, deleting it would be a bad move.Will 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. By this "logic" we need a page for every newborn baby, since they may go on to do something significant. Here's an idea: Significance first, article later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- GWO
Keep as WillFirminger --Ood 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Okay, so it's a mysterious website. Whoopee. The idea that we should wait until the countdown reaches zero is ridiculous; as has been noted before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; something needs to be worthwhile when the article is written, not in the future. If this is so significant and exciting, let's see it get some media coverage or huge Slashdot buzz or something that signifies that people really give a damn -- otherwise, it's just another website. -- Captain Disdain 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Forget my first comment(i removed), delete per Captain Disdain. --andrew 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Until the timer reaches zero. Even if it is a viral markeing site, the Wikipedia page should be about the site itself, not the product (in the same way that ilovebees is about the site, not Halo 2 itself)

Delete (or speedy), block recreation. Fails WP:WEB (note: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria), also fancruft, and article is largely nonsense, original research not encylopedic and not verifiable. If it becomes part of a marketing campaign then it can go into an article about the product, if enough encylopedic content can be found. akaDruid 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need a Wiki article to publicize the hoax more. The whole thing is pure speculation/crystall ballism. It's just another Ytmnd fad made by the members.--Andeh 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all advertising. — Haeleth Talk 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a ytmnd fad this was made before the ytmnd was there.
~~Keep~~ Wait - I agree with others: we should wait until July 1st. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Captain Disdain. I am somehow reminded of the old joke, ""How do you keep a (FITB) in suspense?" but I am also reminded that humor and irony often do not transfer in text. Tychocat 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We don't know whether this is viral marketing or not. Until it is confirmed to be so, which will likely be at the end of the timer, it should remain. It should also be taken off if nothing happens after the timer ends, obviously. Additionally, this has become a big and noticable thing on internet blogs and various internet news sources.

Comment: I see no real reason why any site would be this deliberately obscure unless it was to create hype. Wikipedia is meant to be an impartial observer, but with no solid information yet as to what Eon8 is, anything written in this article is mere speculation and conjecture that cannot be independently verified by anyone. Wikipedia cannot be an impartial observer if it lets itself get entangled in the hype -- we need to stay above the fray long as possible until the hype settles rather than be part of it. -- Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful, interesting. Ouuplas 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove YTMND references to keep this as a legitimate article. --Frogfusious 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. We have an Haunted Apiary article for precedent if it is viral marketing. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown hits zero. It's most likely nothing, but nevertheless it is pertinent for the time being considering all the hubbub and ruckus concerning it. Once we see that it's most likely just some silly marketing campaign, we can run this thing again and see the page get axed. eszett ^talk 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4. --DarkAudit 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator of this AfD is the 3rd admin who speedied this. In other words, let's just give this article its 5 days of discussion. Kimchi.sg 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we find out more about this site. MisterCheese 15:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Much is unknown about this mysterious site. If the theory about a marketing scheme for a console is true then move parts of this article to the console's article. I'm personally intrigued about this, if it turns out to be nothing then Delete. Bfscr 15:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's just create articles about every site on the Internet, just incase they might become the next Google. *sarcasm* It's just a hoax. If it's something important, than go ahead and re-create it. andrew 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't know if it is something important or just a hoax. That's why we need to wait. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would say that we don't wait. It's been deleted twice already, and fails to meet notability standards. If no one knows what it's for, how can it be notable? And I don't buy the 'it's notable because no one knows what it's for' argument. --DarkAudit 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown is past zero to decide what to do. Jdh 24 16:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may I just point out that AFDs last five days so this is going to be here until the counter reaches zero regardless of whether people suggest keep or delete. Ydam 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the countdown ends. It's less than 12 hours away and considering there -are- people interested, maintaining what little info there is would be fitting in the stance of Wikipedia. Plus, when the counter is over and we know what will happen/happened, we can delete it or keep it as needed. (no sig to put sorry =/)

Wait until July 1st. If it turns out to be viral advertising, I would suggest a merge of all relevant information into viral marketing, provided that eon8 loses its notability following the conclusion of the countdown. Jryder 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least for now. This thing did generate a lot of buzz. Whatever it is, I'm buying one. At least wait till the timer ends to decide what'll happen to this page. --Nintendorulez talk 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the time is up, then we can see if it is definately a hoax or not, so we can delete, merge, or keep. Until then, we shouldn't delete it. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Keep and rewrite. ILB won a place as a settled phenomenon, this should, too. Keep the reference as a service to the myriad people who just want a one stop, no-hype confirmation that the page is generally regarded as real but not true, but make it clear that wikipedia is not for speculation. Update again after it's all said and done. 18:01, 30 June (UTC)
Wait as per above.-PlasmaDragon 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect for the 10 hours remaining: Once there are some more "solid" facts on the subject, IE: What it means, sources that quote it, topics on the media, and a stance of notability, Rewrite entirely to meet WP guidelines. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may be somthing important for all we know...and wikipedia is the only place i could find that had a colaboration of all the interent communites information on this strange site...theres more to this than viral marketing i feel

Wait until time is up, then we could take action against it. Until then, I say we just let it be. The pointer outer 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I agree with The pointer outer. Let's hold off until this countdown ends and see if there's any substance to the site or if it's just a hoax. Torinir 18:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait or at least take much of the information into the article on viral marketing, it's a stellar example of viral marketing execution. If it turns out to be for the new Bond film, it should be a section in the Casino Royale article. 71.200.83.199 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think all this waiting business is the way to do things. We don't customarily keep things because they might turn out to be significant; in fact, we pretty much do the exact opposite! As I said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Restoring the article if it turns out to be significant is a piece of cake. Ain't no thing. Right now, it's just a thing on the web, and not even a thing that everyone's talking about -- sure, it gets some blog action, but there's a reason why "stuff some guys said on their blogs" is not generally accepted as a Wikipedia source. It may turn out to be significant, but it may not. Point is, we don't know, which pretty much underlines the fact that it is not yet significant. The fact that a lot of us are clearly intrigued by it speaks well of these guys' ability to get people interested, but that doesn't make this site encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no special reason to wait until the counter expires. If it's viral marketing, then Wikipedia is not a billboard for it. If it's an inside joke propagated by someone with nothing better to do, then it isn't encyclopedic. If it's a real, honest web site, then the conclusions reached by the article are still original research. I don't see any reason to keep this around. --Elkman 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see a reason not to. I think it's really interesting, and as it continues developing the Wiki article should be there to help log it. If it turns out to be nothing, then I still don't suggest deletion, but maybe merging it with an article on hoaxes or something like that. It's been around for nearly 80 days now, and I think that should give it some sort of merit. -- Phallicmic 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Phallicmic has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 71.96.194.29. Jll 22:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Because we do not yet know what Eon8 is, it may be something of significance. And even if it is viral advertising, should it not have a page? If Ilovebees has a page, then why not Eon8? -- 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Although this site is probably some sort of viral marketing tactic, it is good that Wikipedia has it marked as it has become a sort-of internet meme amongst forums and other communities. -- Necromancer 17:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's only got 8 hours left. At least let's see what happens.--Mobius Soul 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why the heck is this even considered for deletion? You have got to be kidding me, such other sites with similar characteristics such as ilovebees.com as mentioned above has a wiki page, why not this? --User:Tooooon 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Tooooon has no edit history, so presumably didn't make this edit. The page history shows it to have been done by 86.20.242.197. Jll 21:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ on a pogo stick. Another flurry of redlinked commenters. Is this catching or something? Delete as what I suspect is going to be a marketing ploy of some sort... it smells like one. (Considering that AfDs run five days, we'll know whether it's worth it or not anyhow.) Tony Fox (speak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is how viral marketing happens. cacophony 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This could be something big, and you know-nothings will be cowering away once it happens. I can't believe some of you think typing "NN, D" is actually hip and cool. Go find some girl (or boy) friends, you nerds. Bubby the Tour G 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, the above comment betrays a gross ignorance of how Wikipedia actually works. No one's going to be cowering away once -- well, if -- it happens, because this is not a personal thing or a guessing contest or a puzzle. It just isn't about trying to predict whether this turns out to be something important. At all. -- Captain Disdain 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're the ignorant one, buddy. This article is becoming very popular... and even if nothing happens, it still deserves a spot here. I am not ignorant as to how Wikipedia works... k? 65.34.136.176 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wikipedia is a source for information, so why purge itself of its information on a topic that has little information available?

*Keep for now, and you can't accuse me of redlinked profile or lack of edits or any of those chestnuts. There are three distinct possibilities here. Possibility one: It is viral marketing, in which case it is probably notable. Possibility two: It is an elaborate hoax, which just might make it notable if enough sources pick up on it when the countdown hits 0. Possibility three: It's actually a conspiracy, which is highly unlikely, but obviously notable. We'll have more information when this thing hits 0. Crystallina 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete, unless for some reason it is picked up by media. Crystallina 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possibility one: fails for advertising. Possibility two: fails WP:HOAX. Possibility three: fails WP:NPOV. All three mean delete. --DarkAudit 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this article should remian on wiki. --Street Scholar 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Wait - I thought this isn't a vote. Anyway, wait until after this hoax is done with. Maybe add it to the list of hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes here. --Jon Ace 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet fame is as good as the regular variety, and clearly this has become famous on the Internet. It could do with some links to where it's been mentioned. Xuanwu 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is pretty useless. Protect re-creation until July 1st, when we can see if anything came of the site. It's just a giant rumour mill as is. --Doug (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Oops, didn't see that this AfD would run past July 1st. I'll keep my opinion as Delete, unless something majorly useful is revealed tommorrow.--Doug (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can afford to wait until it becomes notable before we have an article about it. --William Pietri 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above/nom (way up there). If anything that is purported to happen, happens, deletion review can undelete the article. Zos 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until proven either true or a hoax. Wizrdwarts (T|C|E) 21:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per the many reasons cited above. --Rikoshi 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - SOMETHING will happen. Wikipedia should not deny the existence of this page. If eon8 turns out to be a hoax, you should STILL keep the page for the sake of wikipedia remaining the world's foremost archive of all relatively interesting stuff. Famous or not (and eon8 is becoming a fad), I want to know what's going on, and wikipedia was the first place I found that provided some explanation of the site. Since it's useful to me, keep it around, why not? 71.224.37.10 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this Strong Keep Ilrosewood 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect Sockpuppet - Above User Ilrosewood has only ever edited in relation to this afd Bwithh 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for two reasons. There is clearly a huge popularity with its number of edits, and there is sufficient information to provide from the website. The speculation simply needs to be removed. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hadn't heard of it before seeing the article.--Sar e kOfVulcan 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all the "Wait" voters: Our AfD policy, which makes most AfDs stay open one week, means this AfD will still be running when the clock reaches zero. Don't get too upset, and if it turns out to be notable, people will change their votes. Morgan Wick 21:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't change our votes when we're all dead! </hardyharhar> - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hold my breath. - Motor (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wait - Wikipedia is about the only thing out there that has any information on this whole buisness. It may not have a huge traffic rating, but then again, it's realitivly new and has been generating quite a bit of buzz. If it turns out to be a lame advertising ploy, then it can just redirect to the company. But for now, it should stay. --Tiler 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough information on/from the site even to warrant notability. It is clearly viral marketing, and has will be even less appropriate here when it starts selling a product in a few days. Seidenstud 22:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as crystal ballism, unless something totally cool happens. --M e rovingian {T C @} 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just keep it. 5 and a half hours remain. if something noteable does happen you will have to rewrite the article 5 hours after it's deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.198.185 (talk • contribs)
Delete, not notable and probably viral marketing. Zantolak 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website exists and it deserves a place in this encyclopdia. It is not a marketting ploy from what I can see especially considering there is no specific details or contact details or anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfkami (talk • contribs)

Comment, user has two edits, including the one above. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this is significant enough of an internet event to warrent a spot on this "encyclopedia."--Esuriat Corinths 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User has six edits to articles. - Motor (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this comment meant as a means of invalidating my vote just because I don't feel inclined to edit Wikipedia very often? I assure you that though I haven't done many edits, it's primarily because I have had very little time to do so since I created this account. As such, turning away an opinion in this manner can be discouraging to people who are aspiring to become prominent editors.--Esuriat Corinths 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. What happens on July 1? Someone gets either fired for getting no publicity, or paid off for running a successful campaign. Who cares? Not me, and neither do the Wikipedia guidelines. It fails WP:NOR and fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep it who knows what will happen?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.98.236 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom, and all the marketing arguments. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for viral marketing. —Stormie 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't KNOW if it's viral marketing. Stop voting to delete, until the timer ends. After that, this article will become incredibly useful, or stupidly useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.159.161 (talk • contribs)
Keep/Wait, This discussion alone proves this site's notablity. Removal prior to July 1, 2006 would not be prudent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.86.24 (talk • contribs)
Keep/Wait, Have some patience. There is less than a day left. When the counter hits zero, then do what you will, but wait until it does. 4-5 more hours ain't gonna kill Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.238.145 (talk • contribs)
Keep/Wait, this is definitely notable. Delete if it's viral marketing, but right now this is serious buisness. --YesIAmAnIdiot 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC) 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silly, non-notable vandalism magnet. Also, it's a YTMND fad, and if Brian Peppers is any indication, YTMNDers will stop at nothing to avert VfD. They have much more spare time than we do. Thunderbunny 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I am saying this just on the basis that this article is VERY useful to people, especially today and tommorow, assuming there will be an internet tommorow. Heck, I went to wikipedia to look this up. It is an event that there is so little information on that everyone wants to try to find out more. Where else to go but here?Sbloemeke
Keep if we do not know, we should not delete. too early for afd.--Buridan 00:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Wait, It is clear that there is no concensus on the purpose of the website. This invalidates the argument for deleting as marketing. This is an assumption, and considering the general unpredicability of the internet, an assumption that is not well based. --70.101.178.208 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove to me that it is not marketing. Show me how it meets any of the required criteria of WP:WEB. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to say wait, but in this case it's just a passing fad which is popular because it's been researched enough to make people ask themselves if it's a conspiracy or not (it isn't, you don't see MJ12 making a website and telling everyone when it'll assume control of the world). Master of Puppets ^{Giant Enemy Crab!} 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Speedy Delete A7, Do Not Wait, and Permanently block the IP addresses of the creators of the article for continuing to recreate the article after previous deletions as well as flagrant sockpuppetry attempt to subvert afd discussion. This is pure and relentless and appalling marketing/self-promotion abuse of wikipedia, either for yet another idiotic "enigmatic" web-based art project or for a marketing campaign. The idea of waiting for the countdown to end is absolutely ridiculous and is an invitation for more art self-promotion/viral marketing abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is absolutely not supposed to be a cog in a marketing machine or a free billboard for "edgy" web artists. If the site does in fact turn out to be notable after the countdown ends, THEN create an article. To do so now is simply to blindly help someone promote themselves for zero encyclopedic reason. It does not matter that we don't know if the website is for commercial marketing, we DO know that is relentlessly and obnoxiously (repeatedly recreating the article and the flagrant sockpuppetry) self-promoting itself on Wikipedia without any evidence of encyclopedic notability or any notability beyond its own promotion. If we wait until July 1, we would merely be bowing to the main goal of the self-promoters, and be prostituting Wikipedia in the process. Delete, and ban the IP addresses of the creators for unacceptable and repeated abuse of Wikipedia. No mercy. Bwithh
- Comment Self-promotors? Prove it. Noob cannon lol 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response This is a rich comment from User:Noob cannon lol whose only interest prior to this afd discussion has been creating a self-promoting article about their own or their own group's video game mod which was subsequently deleted despite much sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry by Noob cannon lol and his friends in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_more_room_in_hell the afd nomination Bwithh 03:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems a bit harsh. QRX 00:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarification Just to clarify, even if the website does turn out to be sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia, I would STILL strongly recommend as a matter of principle that admins ban the IPs of the creators - at least for a long period of time if not permanently. I don't think this is harsh if the community tries to protect wikipedia from relentless abuse for self-promotion as well as sockpuppetry. Bwithh 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wait until the counter reaches zero, then we can see wether or not to take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanko (talk • contribs)
Keep, Let's wait until the timer reaches zero. If it is something that is not noteable, then get rid of it. dposse 00:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wait until the timer reaches zero, like most say. This could turn out to be something big. --Akyu 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Wait until the time is up. After we can tell whether to keep, merge or delete. -AndThree

Suspected sockpuppet - the above user has only ever edited this afd. Bwithh 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting verbatim from the lead, Eon8.com is a website "with unknown origins and a slowly-developing purpose and function". Sounds like a fancy way of saying non-notable to me. Fails that, nevermind WP:WEB. -Fsotrain09 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible terms delete per WP:WEB and the fact that this is a non-notable phenomenon. Vote-stacking of all the above sockpuppets and blockheads saying 'Let's wait and see' is not a valid exercise as (a) this is not a vote and (b) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if it isn't notable, it isn't notable. We don't create speculative articles about things that might be notable one day. ~~Given that the website is now not available, this remnant should also be purged~~. Wikipedia requires more than self-published sources, and the only alternate available references are an array of forum posts. Only 176 unique Ghits for "Eon 8" (mostly unrelated) and 308 unique Ghits for "eon8" (likewise). Big WP:V problems alone merit deletion. Kill it with fire NOW. SM247^{My Talk} 01:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can do anything at Eon8.com, I mean Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: Wait until the time is up. If it turns out to be a viral marketing ploy then merge to list of viral marketing ploys. If it's a virus then keep. There is no such thing as a "hijack" of a free encyclopedia for marketing purposes. Other articles exist about other web sites. These articles serve as marketing for said media. - m0nde 1:27 AM July 01, 2006 (UTC)
- Response to mOnde Please see WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:FREE. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia, and that especially includes non-notable marketing and self-promotion efforts. Bwithh 03:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Some documentation should be available on Wikipedia about current events. You were correct to refer me to policies but I reiterate that this has become an internet event which people have been discussing ad nauseum. I do believe, however, that the page should be rigourously monitored for misuse by those who are disscussing it. m0nde 05:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/Keep* At least wait until the counter reaches 0. If something notable and worthy of inclusion happens then, keep it; otherwise delete it. Xgamer4 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can just see a bunch of fat nerds in a basement sweating profusely at this BLATANT ATTEMPT TO PROSTITUTE WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!. The website has created buzz. It's notable. People are coming here to "vote" not to stack anything but because they want to weigh their opinion without making an account. Are these people's opinions worth less because they're anonymous? Tokakeke 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of us, myself included, would argue that proposition. If you are only coming here to give an opinion, you are likely not familiar with Wikipedia policies. The above comments reflect this. SM247^{My Talk} 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Don't straw-man me. I know Wikipedia policies, I feel it doesn't matter in this case due to the fact this site has spread in less than two days to pretty much everywhere. You want to berate someone for policy, look at the guy underneath who just chewed out a new user for being a "sockpuppet" (apparently someone's got a faulty definition). Too lazy to sign in, 67.188.132.146 04:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep\Delete*: Just keep it until it is over, then trash it. It's probably unimportant. ... ManualSearch 10:06. 30 June 2006

Comment Suspected sockpuppet - ManualSearch has only edited in relation to this afd. Bwithh 03:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If only as an excellent example of viral marketing in action? 24 / 48 hours ago Google knew next to nothing about eon8. today i've lost track of the number of forums discussing it in threads that run for page after page after page! and either eon8 are being very tricksy and ramping up the intrigue as the clock ticks away, or their site has gone down under the strain of god knows how many million hits? very, very well done IMO! sepher 88.107.219.208 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you see what I mean by how implementing long or permanent bans on the article creators being a good idea? Bwithh

Response: should i infer anything from the indentation of your post immediately below mine? along the lines of sock/meat-puppetry? by way of general comment rather than direct reply, if there are suddenly no end of new / anonymous users offering their opinions here on this, i suspect that that's as a result of the interest generated, and not because they are all in the pockets of theplanet / eon8. that that level of interest has been generated is reason enough to keep the article, i'd have thought? sepher 88.107.219.208 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not run by popularity contests. It's an attempt at an encyclopedia not a free billboard for whatever thing people are trying to create buzz for Bwithh 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I'm suggesting that the number of hits / searches / threads / posts, here, and elsewhere on the net, are an indication of the widespread interest created. not that Wikipedia should be a "popularity contest" or a "billboard"? i think the "buzz" round the net is obvious. how many daft sites and anims have you seen spoofing it, or analysing it? lots, that's how many! it's an event. keep for now at least? it may be a 9 day wonder? it may just be the biggest thing since dancing hamsters! ;) sepher 88.107.219.208 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please try to keep personal attacks out of this, as well as needless generalizations. I do not appreciate being called a self-promoter, blockhead, sockpuppet, etc. and neither do the many entrenched Wikipedians who have voted to keep this article. I am reiterating this here so it hopefully does not happen again. Crystallina 02:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read this, please. SM247^{My Talk} 02:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noone is calling you a sockpuppet. Noone is saying that all the keep votes are sockpuppets. But there is clearly sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry going on in this discussion. Bwithh 03:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep/Wait blah blah blah what everyone else said. This page is fun. --Liface 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing my vote. What a letdown. --Liface 04:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it doesn't meet notability requirements (not yet, anyway), as per WP:WEB. --dsm iv tr 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I definitley think this should stay up. It's a big happening on the internet right now, and therfore needs a page to document it. At the very least, it can stay up as an example of viral marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.124.56 (talk • contribs)

Wait until the counter reaches zero. --G0zer 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page is just a mess of speculation. Per above, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Alphachimp ^talk 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the counter reaches zero.Delete; what a gyp. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • not even doom music)} 03:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. This type of thing is exactly what Wikipedia should be useful for. I've heard of eon8 from three different sources in a matter of hours. Google is 24–48 hours behind, and Britannica obviously won't ever touch this. Where else will I be able to look for a reliable synopsis of this meme, along with thorough details as to what's been discovered? Obviously this is nothing but a viral marketing site, but I can't determine that solely by looking at the site (which is down) or forums (which are segmented and unreliable). If you want to bring the page to Wikipedia's standards, then eliminate the "crystal ball" paragraphs and stick to the core facts about this site and what it has been discovered about it. —tilde 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This website is a crystal ball, as a website of predictions. For more information, see WP:NOT. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 03:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, keep this page. It will record a historical event in internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.149.76.103 (talk • contribs)

Delete. Interesting nothing worth keeping though Ilovebees and the AI game were innovative marketing techniques this was just a farce. --68.248.1.154 04:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was stupid when I knew nothing about it, and it's still stupid now. Ryulong 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. This was a rather significant incident in the last 24 hours on the internet and one that is likely to be referenced in the future. --Sauzer 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. www.eon8.com/july1statistics.gif Look, 45,000 total unique users. 6 billion people in the world. In short, this was tiny. Not notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete July 1st has come, nothing spectacular happened, this is no longer even remotely notable. syphonbyte 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above poster. It wasn't an ad, it wasn't terrorism, and it wasn't anything remotely memorable. The site will be forgotten in 2 days. --JOK3R 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, This is a classic example of a Internet phenomenon. It should be kept. dposse 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant event in the history of the Internet, just like ilovebees, where paranoia and human curiosity made a small insignificant website explode in popularity. --68.35.24.137 04:30, 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 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SnoSupport[edit]

Non-notable company with limited exposure. Brad101 04:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 317 Google results [27]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Zos 06:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADS and WP:CORP (mere commercial use of Wikipedia). SM247^{My Talk} 01:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for non-notable product KarenAnn 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. The arguments here for deletion focus primarily on notability, and the rewrite hasn't provided any new assertions of that. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino-American Christian Church[edit]

This article is about a non-notable church, the writing is of questionable neutrality and quality, and it's copied and pasted from the organization's website. [28] -Sean Hayford O'Leary 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable church. Only 272 Google results [29]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Big time copyvio, but not a speedy candidate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If its a "big time" copvio then wouldnt it meet CSD? I've seen an article deleted because of copvio very very fast. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, the article has been around here for more than 48 hours, thus it does not fall under the CSD A8 criteria--TBCTaLk?!? 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 21:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and writing is heavily non-neutral, mere copy. SM247^{My Talk} 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PAge has been changed where there is nothing from the website. Sanny Olojan^{My Talk} 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is no longer a copy violation and is more neutral, but it's still not especially high-quality. I also find it suspicious that this article has only been edited by one person since it was started two months ago and now another user appears out of the blue and completely rewrites it. Moreover, the original maintainer of the article hasn't touched it. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 02:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I withdraw my above accusation of sock puppetry. I'm still not satisfied that the article should remain on Wikipedia, though. -Sean Hayford O'Leary 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you can see from the article the page has been redone. Still it may need a little work on it, I still think the page shoud stay on wikipedia. --Timothy Chavis 17:40, 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 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory M. Eichelberger[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Of these Google searches [30] [31] [32], only "Greg Eichelberger" returns any real results. He (or someone else with his name) seems to have lots of activity as an IMDB editor, but nothing that would meet WP:BIO. Also possibly a vanity article (author is User:Gregwriter). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, only 8 Google results [33]. Possibly also userfy to User:Gregwriter--TBCTaLk?!? 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. jni 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO --WinHunter ^(talk) 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. SmartGuy 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 21:07, 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 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gongshow[edit]

Neologism. Also WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, 758 relevant Google results [34]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. I don't believe indiscriminate collection rule applies here however. hateless 05:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a proto/neologism; the definition is also an attack on a type of hockey fan, too. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC, but leave page name as a redirect to The Gong Show. Oldelpaso 06:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Redirecting to The Gong Show wouldn't be a bad idea, either. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN n WP:V. Zos 19:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Gong Show. SM247^{My Talk} 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SM247. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:32, 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. The case for deletion is very well argued and is supported by the weight of editor opinion below. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Enoch[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

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

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

A fork by User:TheEditrix, one of many. A quotation from Enoch appears in the Epistle of Jude, and it is accepted scholarship that what has come down on us as the Book of Enoch is identical to the work that the author of Jude quoted from. A reference can be provided on request.

Besides, the work is called Book of Enoch, not Lost Book of Enoch, so keeping a redirect would be misleading. Dr Zak 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not familiar on the subject, I suggest a redirect to Lost books of the Old Testament.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to where its relevant. Zos 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the article is problematic on several levels. Yes, there is a Pseudoepigraphical book called Enoch (which survives largely in Ethopic [Ge'ez] versions); however, no credible scholar refers to this as "the lost book of Enoch." Furthermore, no credible scholar would state that the book "may have been written by the Biblical prophet Enoch ben Jared, who was an ancestor of Noah." These books (the Pseudoepigrapha) were literary works of the :Hellenistic period. Finally, the one citation is not a scholarly source; but rather, appears to be an internet ministry. Em-jay-es 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MJS: This should be a keep. Please note that the pseudepigraphal Ethiopic book you reference is NOT the book described in the article. This article describes the original book referenced in scripture, which absolutely "may have been written by E b. J." I trust you'll reconsider your vote in light of this information. --09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEditrix (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep. This is a thoroughly referenced article, and requires its own page for the following reasons:

1. As the article notes, the existing Book of Enoch may or may not be the book referenced in the Epistle of Jude.
2. I dispute the assertion that it is "accepted scholarship" that the two books are identical. To the contrary, there's a strong body of evidence that the existing Book of Enoch is pseudepigraphal. If so, the lost book and the pseudepigraphal book are entirely unalike. Note new Encyclopedia Britannica link confirming this position.
3. If the two books are the same -- a question unresolvable by modern scholarship -- the article makes clear the possibility.
4. Moreover, this is a daughter article to Lost books of the Old Testament. Redirecting it back to the parent would be comparable to redirecting all the individual entries for Biblical books (Book of Genesis, Gospel of Matthew, et al) back to Bible. These books are individually notable.
5. Re: current lack of scholarly links. This is a growing article. Note that it's only a day old. Stub it, if you believe it needs more work, but deleting an article that is already this thorough because it's not yet thorough enough is premature, at best.
6. Finally, if editors wish to discuss the possibility of the books being identical, the place to do that is within this article. Deleting the article makes that exercise impossible. --The Editrix 09:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. This would appear to be WP:NOR in respect to the claims there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" different from existing, known works attributed to Enoch. None of the links provided suggest that anyone has a serious, scholarly opinion that there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch" that is different than 1 Enoch. Claiming that because Enoch 1 is pseudepigraphal and thus cannot be this so-called "Lost Book of Enoch" is a straw-man argument. Regardless of the true authorship of Enoch 1, the author of Jude apparently accepted it as scriptural and referenced it in his work; not surprising if taken in the historical context of when Jude was written. A discussion of whether or or not there is an additional Book of Enoch that differs from 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, or 3 Enoch is a disscussion for a forum or message board, not a Wikipedia article. I would say redirect to 1 Enoch but since this was found in 1773, the title would be a misnomer.--Isotope23 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to merge (no redirect necessary) with the existing article on the Books of Enoch. Apocalyptic texts are bound to attract esoteric interpretations. This text needs to be changed to make it clear who is promoting the notion that the true text of Enoch was suppressed, and otherwise restated in a NPOV way; and if that is done I have no problem with its inclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if that is done it needs to be sourced as well, because I couldn't find any evidience of the suggestion there is a true text that has been suppressed.--Isotope23 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Half-preserved text tend to attract speculation and conspiracy theorists, so it's imperative that any assertions made be on an adequate level of scholarship, lest the article descends into conspiracycruft. I see no proper sources there, merely websites with no scholarly aspiration. Dr Zak 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Not original research. Note sources on page. --The Editrix 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please don't state keep again since you've already stated it once in this debate. The problem with the sources on the page is that none of them (as far as I could see) suggest there is an additional "Lost Book of Enoch". They all refer to 1 Enoch. Thus, the contention there is a "lost" book constitutes original research.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By itself, my remark about the article’s title is insufficient for a deletion. However, as Wikipedia already has several articles on legitimate Enochic literature, the title Lost Book of Enoch is misleading at best and sensationalistic at worst.
Please note the following points:
1. If this book of Enoch is separate from the known books of Enoch, and exists only in the short citation found in the New Testament (Jude 14-15), as User:TheEditrix asserts; then, the book in question is hypothetical. That is, it exists only in theoretical form (the theory being: Jude had a book called “Enoch” that has since been lost).
2. The presumption that Jude had a lost book of “Enoch” is problematic for several reasons. This is because the source cited by Jude is Enoch himself, and not a book. Thus, it remains in the realm of possibility that Jude was citing an oral tradition ascribed to Enoch, or (more probable), that he is citing a book in which the character of Enoch was a major player. The best example of this second possibility is the pseudepigraphical book of Jubilees, where Enoch plays a role.
3. To state that the historical Enoch “may have been the author” sidesteps not only the above considerations, but also the basic question of whether Enoch ever existed in history (many scholars view the character as a mythical figure). Furthermore, the statement stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming scholarly opinion regarding Pseudoephigraphic writing during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (i.e. the period of the second Temple of Jerusalem). The production of literature ascribed to biblical characters was commonplace during this time period. Biblical characters (like Enoch) who lived before the time of Moses, became popular “authors” in the third, second and first centuries BCE. While it is safe to say that Enoch is the “traditional” author of a particular text, it is improper for an encyclopedia entry to state that he “may” have
4. Finally, considering that User:TheEditrix is dealing with a theoretical book cited only in the New Testament epistle of Jude, it is problematic that no New Testament scholarly works are cited. To deal with a “Lost Book of Enoch” that only presently exists in Jude 14-15, one must begin by examining Jude 14-15. What can New Testament scholarship tell us? In terms of textual-criticism; do all ancient manuscripts of the NT include the Enoch quote? Are there any textual variations? Are there anomalies in the Greek of the NT that would indicate a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic source? Does the Greek quotation match up with any present Greek translations of Enochic texts known to date?
User:TheEditrix, I am not trying to dissuade you from conducting research into extra-canonical biblical literature (and I hope you find my criticism constructive); however, the article as it stands represents WP:NOR, and does not qualify as an encyclopedia entry. Em-jay-es 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MJS's excellent reasoning. No need for a redirect, an unlikely search term (especially with the capital B). Tevildo 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MJS. --Fire Star 火星 03:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or better merge with Book of Enoch, that is if there is any content worth merging. Peterkingiron 23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Book of Enoch. The debate about the if the 'lost book' is the same or separate from the 'book of enoch' can be easily discussed in a 'controversy' section within the Book of Enoch article in my opinion.--P Todd 02:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note massive talk page spamming [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Dr Zak 04:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have warned User:Dr Zak about his recent personal attacks. This article is to knew for this. Now if in a month or so, there is nothing important about htis article, then we can delete it then. False Prophet 03:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, pointing out talk page spamming is not a personal attack. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no evidence of personal attacks. Assume good faith. --Fire Star 火星 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How "new" the article is is totally irrelevant. It is not WP:V and constitutes original research, both are grounds for deletion and nobody has put forth any sort of coherent argument why this article does not run afoul of those two policies.--Isotope23 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with False Prophet. shijeru 03:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. And please quit spamming talk pages. BigDT 04:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add some sources please. --Guinnog 14:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV fork with OR. As the cited sources make clear there is neither evidence nor scholarly speculation about such a book (rather than the well known Book of Enoch). Eluchil404 21:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per MJS -- Avi 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Avi 16:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediamarketing[edit]

Appears to be a neologism, though I couldn't really find a definition for the term via Google, only companies that had the word as part of their name --Gnewf 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Few relevant google results [48]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified & unreferenced proto/neologism. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tautological jargon. "Mediamarketing is any form of marketing where a sales tactic is used to solicit clientele using mass media." How long did it take you to figure that one out? Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:17, 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 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Siegel[edit]

Nonnotable embassy spokesman. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Not a lot of relevant Google results [49]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. jni 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn, fail WP:BIO--WinHunter ^(talk) 06:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ---Not notable, he's the SPOKESPERSON for an EMBASSY, just because it's the Israeli embassy does not make their spokesperson deserve a wiki article.
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. SM247^{My Talk} 01:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI wrote it because sereral other Wikipedians thought an article about David Segal was worth while.Gilad Shalit links there as does, Operation Summer Rains
Barbara Shack 12:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anyone does find a David Siegel notable for an article a DAB page should be used to clean up the links to this article. Vegaswikian 00:26, 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 Closed as withdrawn by nominator. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Rodgers[edit]

Looks like some people can predict the future, as evidenced by this article... --ApolloBoy 05:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on info at Operation Backfire (FBI) and the external link, the 2006 date is in fact a typo for 2005. However, as I have no knowledge at all about this Operation and don't feel I have any reasonable way of assessing this fellow's notability etc., I'll refrain from casting an opinion as to deletion. GassyGuy 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The typo has been corrected. The correct dates were in December 2005, as you may have guessed. Perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn, now that the dates have been corrected. TruthbringerToronto 05:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You may withdraw the nomination, I was confused. --ApolloBoy 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above, nom wishes to withdraw AfD--TBCTaLk?!? 05:41, 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 16:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Dewey[edit]

This article is about an activist who ran a write-in campaign for Congress once. He is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia. NatusRoma | Talk 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, only 12 relevant google results [50], some of which are from Wikipedia--TBCTaLk?!? 05:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 07:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this person not notable per WP:BIO, but the article may confuse people looking for Admiral George Dewey. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity biography of a non-notable person (check the article creator's userpage). Metros232 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:BIO. --Bill (who is cool!) 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSSO[edit]

DeleteThe external link is down and a google search on Nordic School Student Organisation or NSSO doesn't bring anything up. Organization is defunct or never existed.--Esemono 14:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG. As nom mentioned, very few Google results [51] (only 12)--TBCTaLk?!? 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:20, 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 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Story of the Course[edit]

This article's references mainly refer to another book and the entire article is unverifiable original research. Please see the analysis on this permanent link to the talk page of the article. In the analysis each statement of the article is analyzed. Ste4k 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, it's about time, buddy. I was wondering what took you so long to nominate this page for deletion. (For those just tuning in, a list of the other A Course In Miracles related articles this user has nominated for deletion: Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick.)

And I contest the accusation that this page is "Original Research". This page contains the following citations:

^ Publishers Weekly article about Disappearance of the Universe Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace translation article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Miracle Distribution Center study group list Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Foundation for Inner Peace "Scribing of the Course" article Retrieved June 30, 2006

^ Attitudinal Healing homepage June 30, 2006

I have provided a link to the publisher of this book [52], and a picture of the book itself. The article hardly says anything beyond what is verifiable in other places. You may not like the sources I've provided, BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WILL YOU ADMIT THAT I'VE PROVIDED SOME? I'm getting sick of you ignoring this.

Further, if you all think that these books do not deserve their own pages, could I make an article about the most notable books on Course commentary? Where exactly would the rest of you be comfortable with these references? Should I make a small section on the main A Course In Miracles page?

Oh, and I think the article should be kept (obviously) because it is notable for being the only journalistic overview of the entire ACIM movement. -- Andrew Parodi 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the entire ACIM movement is almos certainly not encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Celebrity sex tape is notable? I'm so glad I've decided today is my last day editing on this site. The idea of what is notable and what isn't is so incredibly subjective that it's laughable. I think there is even an article on this site about who has breast implants and who doesn't. Actually, here it is: List of people with breast implants. It's fascinating how on one hand Wikipedia is so un-elitist that anyone can edit it, and then some editors try to turn around and act like this is an Ivy League pursuit. -- Andrew Parodi 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ACIM. Cult-cruft. -- GWO
Merge to ACIM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to A Course In Miracles--TBCTaLk?!? 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publisher of the book is Fearless books, which lo and behold was founded by Patrick Miller, its author. Its amazon.com rank is 347,184 [53] (see "product detail") and having a listing there does not substantiate notability—Publish America books are listed there as well for God's sake. With regard to the references, they are used to substantiate facts about the book this book analyzes, rather than about the book itself. A Course In Miracles appears notable; this cannot piggyback onto its fame; there isn't even an assertion in this article of independent notability. Just to compare, this book returns 87 unique google hits [54], while A Course In Miracles returns 763 [55], among other independent bases. I see nothing here to merge; only the first paragraph contains relevant information for a possible merge and those facts appear to be already established in the substantial mergeto article.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Fughettaboutit's explanation. I didn't think to check Amazon.com earlier. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all self-published books and authors apart from Robert Gunther. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indeed, with prejudice, per above. Eusebeus 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Haeleth Talk 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur with Fuhghettaboutit's reasoning above.--Isotope23 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. --William Pietri 21:12, 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 A7 userfied - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JC Curcio[edit]

Vanity article. Need I say more? --ApolloBoy 05:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Only 16 Google results [56]. Possibly also usefy to User:JCurio--TBCTaLk?!? 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy content. No encyclopedic value. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:looks like vainity and NN. Zos 06:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy per above. DarthVad e r 07:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (who didn't need to say more! - total Vanity);;; Em-jay-es 07:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:looks like vanity and NN. BlueValour 08:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete, non-notable vanity. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then Speedy WP:CSD A7. Viridae ^Talk 11:06, 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 'keep -- 9 cds^(talk) 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Return to Love[edit]

This author of this article already has a page and a similar article was already merged into that page. Discussion with several editors determined that there wasn't any reason for this particular one of eighteen books by the author to have a page of its own. Please see the authors recently merged page at Marianne Williamson, and the discussion on that page as well. Ste4k 05:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, a similar article was already merged into this author's own personal page ... by you, right? Weren't you the one who merged this book's page into the author's page? And then you tried to nominate this page for "speedy deletion" and were told that you can't nominate a page for "speedy deletion" on the grounds that it had previously been deleted, unless it had actually been deleted. It hadn't been. It had simply been merged. I don't think a nominating editor can use his/her own previous merging of an article as justification for deleting the article, can they? That's basically just saying, "This page should be deleted so that I can get what I want." And as I mentioned on the talk page, I think this book deserves its own page apart from her other books because this is the one truly notable book she ever wrote. See the third-party source I quote from that mentions this book was top of the Publisher's Weekly list for eleven straight weeks. I think that's pretty notable. None of her other books achieved that kind of success. -- Andrew Parodi 08:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to merge this book into the author's page originally began on IRC in bootcamp where it looked to be the only way to save the author's page from being deleted. The author's page hadn't any credible secondary resources. All of the resources listed there on that page now were found on my own behalf and research. The book is prominently noted on the author's page, as well as cited resources for it. Ste4k 02:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relatively notable book by a notable spiritual activist (co-founder of the United States Department of Peace). May be a bad faith nom, as evidenced by Ste4k's recent AfD's for basically any article related to A Course in Miracles --TBCTaLk?!? 05:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. -- Andrew Parodi 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to author. Marianne Williamson appears to be notable solely in respect of the authorship and promotion of this book. Reviewing an entire walled garden for inclusion is not evidence of bad faith; Ste4k is not alone in seeing a lack of any cited support for its significance outside the ACIM movement itself. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it is bad faith on his/her part that he/she has continually accused me of being part of "some advocacy group" or of making money off of ACIM, claiming that these things are the only reason I have any interest in seeing to it that he/she doesn't have every ACIM-related article deleted. This person does not understand that deletion nominations are not the place for resolving disputes over article content. Read his arguments for the deletion of Big Brother. This person seems to be prudish. He/she didn't want Big Brother Season 6 to have an article because he/she didn't think it was notable, all the while ignoring the fact that just about every mainstream major show is allowed a page on Wikipedia. He/she seems to not understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- Andrew Parodi 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with a user's behavior that you can't work out with them, dispute resolution is the way to approach it. Here we just consider whether articles should be deleted. William Pietri 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agreeing with everything JzG has said. It is hard to read the article and conclude that this is bad faith. Clearly worthy of discussion at AfD. Eusebeus 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the nomination is well meant as part of a cleanup of some POV-ish material, but the book spent 39 weeks [57] on the NYT nonfiction bestseller list in 1992 and was seen a decade later as one of two books that took New Age thought mainstream [58]. It even gets a brief mention in the Skeptic's Dictionary [59]. I'd have a hard time calling it a non-notable book. --William Pietri 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per William Pietri. 39 weeks on the bestseller list is a clear sign that this book is notable. --Metropolitan90 00:10, 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. – Avi 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Monism[edit]

This article appears to be WP:NEO. In itself, the article states that the term is "is found within" the book A Course in Miracles however, it doesn't cite the book itself as reference, and being mentioned only once in one book is hardly any reason to believe it should have an article for itself. The phrase itself only shows 477 hits on Google. Ste4k 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to A Course In Miracles--TBCTaLk?!? 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Course In Miracles. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to ACIM, but even a merge and redirect is likely giving undue credence to this neologism. WP:NEO says avoid them. I read that as delete. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Tevildo 13:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JzG. — Haeleth Talk 13:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Merging would still acknowledge the neologism, which is against WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism.--Nick Y. 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable concept. SM247^{My Talk} 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is used by Schubert Ogden, a fairly well-known theologian, in articles Lurker 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as currently written is about the neologism, but the term itself (with a different meaning) is used by Ogden, and is in the title of at least one book published in 1923. [60][61] The term in this other sense would not have "Monism" capitalized, however. Gimmetrow 00:33, 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. – Avi 16:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dartmouth Plan[edit]

Not notable, not verifiable, no actual content Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. The article describes a political plan that is only available by applying to receive it via a Gmail address. The article does not describe the plan in any detail. The plan has not been written about in any major media. Most of the linked sources are general and irrelevant. The only place the plan has even been discussed is astroturfing in blog comments. If it exists and is reaching opinion makers, it would have been talked about by now, but Technorati shows no current discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX; couldn't find anything relevant on Google [62] (most of the results are from Wikipedia mirrors and a New York financial company also known as Dartmouth Plan)--TBCTaLk?!? 06:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified & unsourced original research. 893 Ghits which are false positives when WP & mirrors are excluded. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - in addition, User:Sammy Houston has only contributed to this one article. Most probably a hoax. Em-jay-es 06:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is more crank than hoax, actually. The promoter seems to have exactly the wrong idea about how to disseminate ideas today (e.g. talk about the plan on Blogspot). And a meaningless Wikipedia article (suspected WP:VAIN being another reason). --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V and WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-verifiable. SM247^{My Talk} 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above and why would it be sent to Michael Dukakis??? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's an old Hollywood joke about the starlet so dumb, she slept with the writer. Viz., the least influential person possible ... --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. Meekohi 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Discography[edit]

Article apparently created in error; duplicates information found on article on band "Rain".--Hisako 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant due to Rain's Discography article--TBCTaLk?!? 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wait a minute, Rain's not Japanese... anyways, delete it.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 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 redirect to Business process outsourcing in India. – Avi 16:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing to India[edit]

Page was recreated by User:Asirp on 30 June, 2006. Previous discussion. Currently a non-objective article spam-linking to outsourcing firms in India. Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 07:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:OR and WP:ADS--TBCTaLk?!? 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:NOR and WP:ADS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, note that WP:ADS and WP:SPAM are actually links to the same guideline. I use WP:ADS since some editors find it offensive when their articles are called spam, since the word "spam" has a negative connotation.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional essay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content worth merging into outsourcing - most is just an ad as noted above. Kuru ^talk 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Redirect as per Ganeshk Dlyons493 Talk 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to outsourcing. SM247^{My Talk} 01:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Business process outsourcing in India. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ganeshk -- Lost 05:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam, linkfarm, promo KleenupKrew 10:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ganesh. ImpuMozhi 01:58, 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 delete. – Avi 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Garrett[edit]

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful candidate. Also, not a lot of relevant Google results. [63]--TBCTaLk?!? 07:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, non-notable unsuccessful candidate.
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No brainer. David | Talk 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copy over to by-election article any useful info and then delete - fails WP:BIO. —Wh o uk (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a serious candidate. I'd go keep on larger parties, or Green party candidates where it is a major party, but not here. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable candidate fails WP:BIO doktorb _words^deeds 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Original editor also created Shasha Khan and Bernice Golberg, which should be considered too. Mtiedemann 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ben Abbotts[edit]

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

Delete Failed non-notable candidate. doktorb _words^deeds 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed non-notable candidate. BlueValour 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back when you win a notable office. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. non-notable unsuccessful candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long precedent that candidates are not notable. David | Talk 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has stood in more than one election, has made a face for himself on the media, will probably be picked for a more winnable seat in future. I personally have no connections to him or the Lib Dems (I'm actually very anti-Lib-Dem), but I feel that as he has stood in more than one place, it will be useful for people investigating those election results to keep this article (something as a political anarak I seem to do very often). Sean | Talk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and as per Coredesat. Uncantabrigian 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful info into the by-election article and Delete - fails WP:BIO. "Will probably be picked for a more winnable seat" is crystal-balling. —Wh o uk (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate. He is also a sitting councillor. The inforation there now will be useful for future researchers user:nakedbatman
- Comment Vote is from very new user with only thirteen edits on other pages, eleven of which on the page for the successful candidate and most of these edits bore a partisan POV trace. "Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate" is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major party candidate for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed non-notable candidate.Galloglass 2.00, 1 July 2006
Delete and do not recreate until he wins a notable political office. SM247^{My Talk} 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People might be interested of the candidate who almost won the by-elections even after the by-elections. Besides, it has been suggested, that there will be a rerun because of certain irregularities, so in that case the article would need to be re-written again.--213.243.158.41 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This vote comes from an unregistered user and is an early edit. The source for the "suggested...rerun" comes from a LibDem source, so is obviously bias. doktorb _words^deeds 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In addition the Bromley Times, the root source, has subsequently stated the following: Mr Neill failed to resign his directorship until last Friday, but threatened legal action from other parties seeking to have him disqualified now seems extremely unlikely. Keeping this page because of an extremely unlikely potential second election is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 09:24, 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. – Avi 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Gillibrand[edit]

This is yet another candidate that Annonymous1000, Jenikap etc have tried to put on here as part of the election campaign. Fails WP:BIO - Delete. BlueValour 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DarthVad e r 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, unsuccessful political candidate. Also note that there a few editors (mostly Annonymous1000 Jenikap) have recently created large amounts of democratic related articles. Could this possibly be liberal propaganda on Wikipedia? If so, then the above article also falls under WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox--TBCTaLk?!? 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Also, "presumptive" candidate? Sounds like crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a candidate for cleanup and de-pov, but major party nominees to national legislatures should be kept. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Missed "presumptive." Neutral for now. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't take a resume and a pretty face from Albany and say to people this is a good article (per above). SM247^{My Talk} 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now since she is a current congressional candidate in a major party primary [64]. Bring back up for AFD if she loses the primary. KleenupKrew 10:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's WP:NPOV may need some work ("energetic moderate-to-liberal Democrat with broad bi-partisan appeal," is just a start), but as a poorly qualified amateur historian, I personally think this is one of those things that should be kept. If she loses, ten years from now (Web 5.0?) somebody else will have won and the competitor would be a red article because nobody knows who she was... -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:48, 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - if a candidate may become notable upon event A (e.g. producing a hit single, winning an election), we create it when event A takes place, we don't create it based on some sort of presumption of innocence and delete them when event A doesn't occur. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Busansky[edit]

... and another. I wonder how many there are around? Delete. BlueValour 07:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, another non-notable political cadidate. Few relevant Google results [65]--TBCTaLk?!? 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, too, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major party ~~candidate~~ nominee for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not recreate unless elected (and maybe not even then). SM247^{My Talk} 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current major party congressional candidate [66]. Bring back up for AFD if she loses in November, but not now. KleenupKrew 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Significant local/regional politician in a closely watched race in a significant district. Gamaliel 21:24, 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 was Withdrawn. AfD template was removed, and this deletion discussion is dormant. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Construction (RuneScape)[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction (RuneScape)/Archive1 for other AFD nomination.

Page is a game guide, non notable. Ed^{talk c E} 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want this page deleted or just redirected to RuneScape skills? Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if everyone wanted it deleted or redirected. See RuneScape's talk page, and go near the bottom. As you can see, there are others to be deleted.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to just withdraw this nomination and work with me for the next fifteen or so minutes on this article? We just have to get the useful information out of the article, put it in RuneScape skills, and make a redirect like in all the other individual skills articles. Hyenaste ^(tell) 16:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this nomination--Ed^{talk c E} 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Avi 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Castor[edit]

What a surprise - another election candidate. Delete. BlueValour 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not (yet) notable. DarthVad e r 09:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise. Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal ball--TBCTaLk?!? 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major party nominee for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, current congressional candidate in a major party primary [67]. Bring back up for AFD later if she loses the primary, but not now. KleenupKrew 10:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmmm... She's getting some buzz, and is interesting due to her family connections as well as the circumstances of her probable nomination. Needs cleanup for POV (don't have time, gotta run), but let's keep her around. Captainktainer * Talk 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for family connections and being a major party candidate and leading contender for a significant seat. Gamaliel 21:09, 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 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everest of Apples[edit]

A very worthy cause but not yet notable. BlueValour 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, non-notable charity. Only 803 google results [68], few of which are relevant.--TBCTaLk?!? 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no discussion of notability of organisation, WP:ORG refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all above. PJM 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 01:26, 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 17:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandoo[edit]

Effectively an advert BlueValour 08:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's a neon advert. 377 unique google hits [69] for a product that is solely web based. Note the following from their website: "It’s still very early days" (speaking of their beta product). Note also their feedback archive which goes all the way back to May 2006. Not-notable.--Fuhghettaboutit
Delete per above. Not notable. DarthVad e r 09:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:ADS--TBCTaLk?!? 09:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant ad for a non-notable web-based product. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Egg, bacon and SPAM. SM247^{My Talk} 01:26, 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 17:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Peter Beter[edit]

Self promotion for non-notable conspiracy theorist. [70] Netsnipe CVU ^(Talk) 08:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Only 706 Google results [71]--TBCTaLk?!? 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Also, the article is a copy-paste job from his homepage. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable. WegianWarrior 12:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per vain and bio as cited above. Besides, as soon as some schoolkids notice the name, this is going to be ripe for vandalism. Fan1967 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conspiracycruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo or vanity article, no evidence of notability. KleenupKrew 10:57, 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 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child Bite, Wild Feast[edit]

Notability in question, extremely few relevant ghits[72]. --NMChico24 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, no allmusic profile and few relevant google results--TBCTaLk?!? 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC Kevin 09:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (since their debut album hasn't even been released yet). Also signed to a non-notable label. Their album's article may need to be nominated, too. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete as a non-notable band; ~~could be tagged as {{db-band}}~~. Better off on Myspace rather than in an encyclopedia, until notable status is achieved. WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I tried the db approach, and was denied by another admin. This article seems to be reaching consensus quite quickly, though. Thank you for your input. --NMChico24 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, and delete the album Wild Feast as well Fram 11:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Fails WP:BAND, WP:BIO and vanity policy. doktorb _words^deeds 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page and Wild Feast per above. Harr o5 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (N.B. Including the Wild Feast page in this AfD.)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 08:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of free party sound systems[edit]

This is a fairly indiscriminate collection of info, so it fails WP:NOT. There are no citations so it also fails WP:V. None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well. Kevin 09:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 09:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a page which accompanies Sound system (DJ) and Free tekno. It has its own page because of its size. It is a list, it doesn't need citations! The sound systems are there because they fit the selection criteria. On what grounds precisely is the charge that it fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information based on? I looked through it so i could make an response, but i can't see one category which describes this list, which is after all a list of free party sound systems, exactly what it says on the tin.

Did you guys read the discussion on the talk page? I fear not. We already went through the verifiability and 'should it be a list?' issues there. For verifiability, pretty much all the sound systems have websites but they are not linked because Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Many are mentioned in the following books:

De Haro S., Estève W. 3672 La Free Story, Trouble Fête, ISBN 291425301X
Petersen, V. No System, Steidl, ISBN 388243645X
Van Bezouw C. Sonique Village, ISBN 9090159932

User:Kevin says "None of the entries have their own articles, so I have to question the notability as well" - this is not true, there is an entry for Spiral Tribe and more planned, but I dont think its worth putting up just stubs, so they come slowly. Going by WP:MUSIC I feel this list is notable because it falls under the category of others and, as I put it on the talk page ...

All the systems on the list qualify under the following spec:

For performers outside of mass media traditions:

Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.

The tradition/school can be defined as teknival parties or underground culture, the genre as free tekno music. These sound systems participate in parties which can attract up to 100,000 people, for more info look at Czechtek or teknival. Mujinga 00:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this may skirt the edge of being an indiscriminate collection the way the current policy reads, the verification policy is not negotiable. Each entry on the list is a statement of fact that XXX sound system has performed at YYY event. These facts need to be verified, per WP:V. This means a reliable source for each entry, or a blanket source if it's a book or suchlike. I don't consider each sound system's web site as a reliable source, because they are not independant. Kevin 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point Kevin, but if I may respond, I would say that I believe the entries on the list meet the selection criteria for a stand-alone list. I had a quick browse and I don't see many lists with a reliable source for each entry. eg List_of_German_language_poets, List of breakcore artists, List of mathematicians. Further, if you agree this is not an indiscriminate collection of data (and it's really not!) the doubt over verifiability is not in itself a reason to delete. The list can be edited and made better, for example i just added the three book references i quoted above. Verifiability is indeed a problem, as it always is with recent history. Perhaps the introductory paragraph describing criteria for inclusion can be improved with your help? Mujinga 10:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". As I said, each and every entry has to be verifiable. With most Wikipedia lists the entries have their own article, which should provide verification for inclusion on the list. Almost all of these entries have no article, so the verification must be in this article. I'm in favour of removing the redlinks from those other lists if they have been there more than a few days.

The indiscriminate argument could be gotten over with a good introductory paragraph, which I can help with if the article survives.

The bottom line though is that without verification, the article should be deleted. WP:V states that if an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. --Kevin 10:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree with the argument "such and such does not comply with policy, so this shouldn't have to either". My argument was actually that I don't believe every item on a list needs to be independently verifiable and I gave the other lists as examples, but strictly speaking you are correct on this point and actually for this article I can see that this criterion helps prevent vandalism.

As I hoped you noticed, I am busy adding some "reputable, reliable, third-party sources" to the article in a References section. For example, 3672 La Free Story has a list of about 100 systems on page 187. We will ignore the systems' own websites for now even though these could be argued to be official sites operating in the same way as artists' websites do and they often contain fotos, writings, music and other documentation. I could add external links which document groupings of sound systems such as Brighton Alliance of sound systems and Czech Free Tekno. Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that Another good source is Discogs (http://www.discogs.com), useful here because many sound systems (eg Metek or Foxtanz)have eponymous record labels. With the addition of such verification I think that the list can stay. Mujinga 11:33, 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. Rob ert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sashinka Teshxiera[edit]

Hoax or utterly nn. Googling surname gives author's myspace page and little else. prod removed without comment. Delete Huon 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a {{hoax}} biography. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prod tag Oldelpaso 09:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, blatant hoax. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense hoax. NawlinWiki 11:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:BIO and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 14:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 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 CSD A1, nonsense. Tangot a ngo 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total Bullshitery[edit]

I don't think I need to give a long explanation. Not spelling 'Bullshittery' correctly is irritating enough, but I think it's clear why this article needs to go anyway... Peeper 09:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense proto/neologism. Delete the image on the page, too. (aeropagitica) (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per CSD A1 and possibly CSD G3, as evidenced by the topic and by nonsensical statements such as "Total Bullshitery is a phrase first used by one William R. Boynton in the spring of 2006"--TBCTaLk?!? 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A1 for...well, the name of the article is pretty much the same as my explanation. It's been tagged already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:17, 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. Rob ert 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actaeon Films[edit]

Corporate spam, as per WP:CORP; has not yet produced anything other than a single short; all features are in development, and as yet unnotable. Possibly better for inclusion after they've built up a solid track record and/or reputation, but at the moment just one of thousands of production companies. Girolamo Savonarola 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 494 Google results [73]--TBCTaLk?!? 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM. SM247^{My Talk} 01:28, 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. While 4-0 (including the nominator) is smaller quorum that I would like to see, the arguments seem straightforward and convincing, and there was no refutation. I do not see a need to relist. Herostratus 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cormack[edit]

Not notable; likely vanity/auto-biography. Wikipedia is not the London Film Production directory. See also Actaeon Films's AfD. Girolamo Savonarola 10:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per search engine tests. A lot of the results are for irrelevant sites. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, few relevant google results [74]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:05, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 17 et.al.[edit]

I am nominating a series of new Shakespeare sonnet articles because they only contain the sonnet text and no description. Such articles run contrary to the guideline "do not write an article that consists only of lyrics" in Lyrics and poetry. Since I think that the sonnets make fair enough subjects for encyclopedia articles, I am listing up the articles which have no description and which probably should be transwikied to Wikisource unless they get some encyclopedic text on them. If anyone wants to expand any of them to make real encyclopedia articles, please do so and cross it off the list.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki all to Wikisource. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no need to traswiki to Wikisource, since Wikisource already has all of the above sonnets [75]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as there's an informal project going on to get these articles up to scratch see Talk:Sonnet_1 for some early discussion. Some of the sonnets have been updated within the last couple of days, and though it's a big task I think it might be able to be done for all the sonnets. MLA 10:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Give them a couple of months to get them up to scratch with some background. Viridae ^Talk 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Merge any analysis into Shakespearean Sonnets. -- GWO
As written, I understand the desire. However, Keep with massive rewrites, as Shakespearean sonnets undoubtedly have plenty to be said about them from entiely reasonable sources. Perhaps stub them by removing the actual text for now? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If nothing has been done to clean them up in a month or two, I'll vote for deletion. But I'm confident these can be improved. It shouldn't be hard finding verifiable info on Shakespeare! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no information here to delete! There is just the text of the sonnet. These are not "important articles", because they are not articles! They are just pages containing the text of the sonnet. If someone wants to write articles, that's great! But they should write the article and then create a page to contain it, not just create a page and say "please don't delete this empty page, I might get round to writing an article in it one day". (Delete, by the way. Create pages when you have text to go in them, not before.) — Haeleth Talk 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (or delete if Tree Biting Conspiracy is right). If someone wants to write a real article about these, nothing is lost in having them start from an empty page. Also, a sonnet is only 14 lines. If you go so deep as to be able to write an extensive article about that, I think wikibooks is the place. On Wikipedia I would think two or three lines about each sonnet is enough, in which case they'd better fit in some combined form. - Andre Engels 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the massive rewrite Badlydrawnjeff refers to happens in the next 5 days. It appears these were all created by someone who was unaware of the division between Wikipedia and Wikisource. To me, it would be preferable to just have someone start from scratch if they want to write encyclopedic articles about each of these sonnets (obviously I have no predjudice against article recreation of the namespace with different content) rather than wait several months and go through an AfD again. On a side note, is it possible to create a navbar that links out to Wikisource? If so that could be done with the nav bar at Shakespeare's sonnets in addition to the already existing link to Wikisource... allowing someone to quickly access individal sonnets. Somehow though, I remember someone telling me that interwiki linking like that doesnt' work...--Isotope23 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I wish people would stop writing stubs, and promising (or just leaving the stub) to come back and flesh it out later. Is this a race? Is someone losing because they didn't place a stub first to get editorial dibs? Why not write the full article and get it right the first time, and then post the complete article? Yes, writing articles for an encyclopedia is a lot of work - it should be. Tychocat 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dr Zak 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~No vote yet~~ on the general series. Strong keep any that have text besides the template and source. I assume all of these are already at Wikisource. The "analysis" link contained in the stubs I visited suggests that each of these articles could be fleshed out. The noteworthiness of each separate sonnet seems beyond doubt to me. Not sure I agree with some comments that say that it would be no harder to write articles about the sonnets if the pages that now contain only a template and the source text are removed; the template and text are indeed a start. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. It's the nature of the project to be a perennial work in process, and even the barest stubs among these begin at the logical beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP This is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Over about the last month or so, 26 articles have been written on different sonnets, as well as significant changes being made to other Shakespeare related pages and a template being created to unify the discussion of these. It is much easier to work collaboratively on these if the shells are set up and then additional work done. There are 154 to do, and it is much easier to keep the format consistent if they are done in batches like this. And, yes, I expect you will see many of the existing articles grow as the project continues to broaden and deepen. I myself have not been writing original articles, but have worked on improving the ones that are put up. Sam 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - pending further improvements. Let's give these folks a chance to do some more work :) --Doc Tropics 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that much of the specific work being done here was done by one of several newcomers who have been attracted to recent WikiProject Poetry projects, and that a notice of this process was not put on their page (just a note that the creation of the articles was inappropriate). A gentle reminder to everyone: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers -- Sam 17:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call me biased, but keep all - I added these sonnet texts myself, and, not unexpectedly, I think they ought to stay. Having the sonnet's text online is better than having nothing, especially considering their significance to classical English literature. It would be embarrassing for Wikipedia to post links to all 154 sonnets, only to have 90% of them completely missing. Some of you may disagree, but my personal opinion of "getting it right," as Tychocat called for, is getting it done right, not getting it done fast. Of course it's not going to be done in a day. No one is suggesting that and I think the very fact that Wikipedia has stub templates implies that some articles are going to start out wanting. I understand that Wikisource already has the same content, but the fact remains that Wikipedia gets boatloads more traffic than Wikisource, and if I were to search Wikipedia for an article on a certain Shakespearean sonnet, I'd rather find the sonnet's bare text than nothing at all. The whole point of Wikipedia is for different people to add, little by little, and slowly expand and improve content. If all I have time to do right now is post the sonnet texts, that's certainly better than waiting for 154 individual people to write 154 individual articles, one at a time. So what if the synopses, analyses, and other encyclopedic content isn't all going to be written en masse, straight away? --Sean Parmelee 19:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now, good faith stubs. Sean Parmelee, I would suggest focusing on actually turning your stubs into real stubs. I.e. having at least one or two sentences in the body of the article and having some context such as "Sonnet 17 is the 17th sonnet of 154 known shakespeare's sonnets."--Nick Y. 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the deal. Eventually I am going to create articles for all of the sonnets. I usually get about 1 or 2 a day. So, there's really no point in deleting them, folks. Keep them. In a month or two each page will be back anyway. So, if you want to delete them, fine. But I'd rather you didn't because it makes it alot easier for me not having to re-write all of the skeleton. AdamBiswanger1 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you move the unfinished ones into your userspace and move them back once you are down writing the article? Dr Zak 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far, Adam's been in the lead on this, the project was his brainchild, but he's had a bunch of collaborators in the project - Sean is helping, I've futzed around with a couple, Stumps and others have added bits and pieces. It is easier to collaborate with the template set up so we can look at the active editing and all kibbitz. Some of these are pretty raw stubs, some are starting to really develop, most are still empty. But a ton has been done in the last month, and I think the activity is attracting a number of new people to WikiProject Poetry. If this sits in Adam's userpages, we lose many of these benefits, and we'd have to completely redo the template to fit the userspace instead of the article placement. So, sticking it in one user's space would be, in my mind, very un-wiki. Sam 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Putting up raw, uncommented text is very un-wikipedia; people will complain that Wikipedia isn't Wikisource, and they are right! Hey, how about putting those articles without any commentary under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry/To_do? This would make them easy to find and would stop the "not-even-a-stub" complaints. Dr Zak 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there's reference to it under Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry#To Do and Portal:Poetry/Things you can do. I think I will, though, improve the descriptions and make clearer where the work needs to be done. Thanks. Sam 12:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Patience. --Alex S 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we can agree to keep the sonnets up, I think a standardized template needs to be established first, and all existing sonnet pages (stub or otherwise) need to be edited to conform to that standard before I or anyone else creates any text-only articles or any full articles. I noticed that the WikiProject Poetry page suggests using Sonnet 1 as just such a template, but I just wanted to make sure, if indeed Adam is going to contribute quite a great deal of time and effort, that he doesn't waste his time using a template that will only be modified later. As a side note, I personally would be willing (and planned from the start) to contribute some quantity of articles detailing the individual Shakespearean sonnets. Hopefully there is some way to coordinate contributors' efforts before there is any unneeded overlap. --00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Assuming good faith and have some patience, my love, patience..., appears to be work in progress SM247^{My Talk} 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Keep. I'll be interested in what can be done that makes each article worthwhile in itself while also not being OR. I'll watchlist some of these. (An idea for other people who voted keep?) Shenme 04:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Nick Y. Penelope D 04:26, 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. Rob ert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Brother's Keeper[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; non-notable film--TBCTaLk?!? 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 19:06, 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. Rob ert 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dead Letters[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; non-notable film--TBCTaLk?!? 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zos 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per related AfD's (inchoate product of non-notable co is unlikely to be notable). SM247^{My Talk} 01:32, 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. Rob ert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Apples[edit]

Wikispam as per WP:CORP; does not assert notability and has next to no information. Also associated with Daniel Cormack and Actaeon Films AfDs. Girolamo Savonarola 10:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, next to no content, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These three movies may well be speedy material. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film. Only 48 relevant Google results [76]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheRealFennShysa 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nom, and mother goose. Zos 19:08, 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. Rob ert 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L2M Game Zone[edit]

Doesn't say why they're notable. —Lamentation :( 10:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. L2M Game Zone doesn't assert any notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Only 1 Google result [77]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. WegianWarrior 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NN gummy bears. Zos 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, advert. SM247^{My Talk} 01:32, 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. Rob ert 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin Taus[edit]

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 5 ghits. —Lamentation :( 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Appears to be the article creator's first article, so it may be a test page. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC--TBCTaLk?!? 10:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. PJM 11:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to above, orphant article and rambling prose. WegianWarrior 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 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 delete. Rob ert 18:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver de paolis[edit]

non notable-person, no mention of this guy elsehwhere, possibly a hoax Travelbird 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:HOAX. Only 1 Google result [78]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC --Pak21 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Oldelpaso 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Alan Davidson 12:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC, silly. SM247^{My Talk} 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't have to be a hoax, as too many people are getting the ADH tag. But... then I thought about the accent ... "Hertford Harmonica Hearts Hassociation (HHHH)" --> "Hertford 'armonica 'arts Association (HAAA)" Shenme 04:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know this boy as I have heard of him on the blues harmonica circuit. He did win that contest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.103.52 (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. Rob ert 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex strom[edit]

hoax, no mention of any of the people on Google, article contradicts itself Travelbird 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and possibly WP:HOAX. Few, if any, relevant Google results [79]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense bio. NawlinWiki 11:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphant per above. WegianWarrior 12:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, even if a real person. SM247^{My Talk} 01:34, 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. DS 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-fo[edit]

non notable neologism Travelbird 10:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO; a very nonsensical term as evidenced by statements such as the K-fo is "a slang name in Ireland for a breed of mammal that drinks too much". Also, very few relevant Google results [80]--TBCTaLk?!? 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

K-fo is a commonly used term in the south of Ireland localised to the areas of cork city and Dungarvan, county waterford and hence is a valid entry in wikipedia's library. Few relevant google pages are too be expected as Dungarvan is only a small town in a small county and the term "K-fo", although well known in this region, is still reletavely new so shouldn't be diregarded so easily. (added by K-fo)
Delete. If it really were commonly used, there would be references. JPD (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Even if it is widely used in a small area, it isn't important enough for Wikipedia until it is verifiable. JPD (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. Likely hoax. Tevildo 13:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD discussion vandalised by K-fo to change "Delete" opinions to "Keep". Tevildo 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a hoax, and WP is not a place for things made up in school one day. Tychocat 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School?? haha right...anyway, just trying to have some fun, but you guys seem to be stuck so far up your own arses that you've forgotten what that is...oh well, "K-fo" may be deleted from here but that doesn't make a difference at all.....so you can all fuck yourselves especially you london sydney fuck.....mathematics is your hobby...get a life....oh yeah...WHO THE FUCK ASKED YOU?!?!?!? cheerfully yours....K-fo

Delete And thank you OH so much for your thoughtful, objectionable and worthwhile comments. To summarize: Mr. K-fo, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul! Wildthing61476 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and maybe a dab of Speedy for the author's behavior. --DarkAudit 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. Block or otherwise punish the creator of the article for his behavior. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burninate due to verifiability problems and in response to unprovoked idiocy from User:K-fo, the eponym of this absurd article. SM247^{My Talk} 01:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V & WP:NEO. --blue520 07:32, 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 10:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIÑAN, LAGUNA, LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWOODS INTERCHANGE, SOUTH SUPER HI-WAY, Bgy. San Francisco, 4024[edit]

article about a non-notable highway exit, utterly superflous as an article on the town already exists Travelbird 10:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next, Third paving stone from the left, corner of Rochester Row and Vincent Street, just in front of the hairdressers, London SW1? Oh, delete. David | Talk 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom; highway exits are by all means non-notable. Not even bothering to check Google for this one. On second thought, speedy delete per CSD A1.--TBCTaLk?!? 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD A1. I feel like I am being screamed at. Viridae ^Talk 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I now await the above article and That side street just off the A258 with the farm on the corner doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 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, deleted by User:RHaworth. --JPD (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udders of justice[edit]

non-notable band Travelbird 10:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""delete** --Charlesknight 10:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. No allmusic profile and no Google results [81]--TBCTaLk?!? 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7, tagged. This farcical article dosen't assert notability. PJM 11:15, 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 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nzboards[edit]

Boardvertisement. Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:NOR. 135 active members. Alexa rank 476,313. Need I go on? (And don't forget to zorch the image, too.) —Lamentation :( 10:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable webpage--TBCTaLk?!? 11:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 11:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator says it all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, the prose is bad. WegianWarrior 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, has a list of active usernames for grod's sake. SM247^{My Talk} 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Further, that list doesn't appear to be terribly long. A search of an Australia New Zealand media database came up with no stories on this at all and it doesn't seem to meet any other criteria of WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Avenue 03:22, 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. Rob ert 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poleagraphy[edit]

Neologism that someone seems to have made up in school one day. No google hits. (Poleography gets 6). —Lamentation :( 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; WP:NEO and WP:NFT--TBCTaLk?!? 11:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a 10-foot pole. NawlinWiki 11:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejustice per nom. WegianWarrior 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nearly Headless Nick 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a poleaxe. SM247^{My Talk} 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFT and WP:NEO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:58, 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 delete. Rob ert 18:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Element[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Needs serious cleanup if it's to be kept (although that isn't a reason for deletion). --ais523 12:27, 30 June 2006 (U T C)

Delete. The amateur game is not even out yet, and no reason to believe it's predestined to be important. Get famous to get on Wikipedia, not the other way around. Apart from that there is a problem with Wikipedia:Autobiography, as the author calls it 'a game we made' in one of the image uploads. If this get deleted, the pictures on this page should be deleted too. - Andre Engels 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not been released yet, article provides no evidence of notability. DrunkenSmurf 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; non-notable freeware game--TBCTaLk?!? 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scrying for non-notable software. SM247^{My Talk} 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the article's main contributors responded to the AfD with this edit, which was quickly reverted by a bot. --ais523 15:40, 3 July 2006 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa-Marie Rhyne[edit]

nonnotable computer science prof NawlinWiki 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads as a resume. Delete unless someone can add something about her scientific credentials. - Andre Engels 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added something about her scientific credentials. TruthbringerToronto 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and WP:VAIN. Few relevant Google results [82]--TBCTaLk?!? 14:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm so vain, I really think Wikipedia is all about me... - not a place for your resume. SM247^{My Talk} 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now some articles and references. TruthbringerToronto 05:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to scrape by WP:PROF though it still needs some clean-up. Eluchil404 21:20, 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. Rob ert 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eigeleigen[edit]

Non notable and possibly nonexistent "fictional" word + badly written entry (no sources, no explanation of meaning of the word); PROD contested Ioannes Pragensis 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO Nearly Headless Nick 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only Google hit is the page itself. Also, the only claim to fame on the page is that it is incorrectly believed to have been a word used in a film. I already get deletionist when there's more than one page on what is actually in a film. - Andre Engels 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apparently a hoax. — Haeleth Talk 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:NEO and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because flergle. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bloody hell, what else can be said? SM247^{My Talk} 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uh, "blell"? Shenme 04:26, 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. Proto///type 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TotalGaming.net[edit]

Article written by company employee. I don't see any precise claims of notability. No Alexa info. This is all original research and I don't see any reliable sources verifying any of this. I also question the notability of their products, which feature no sources, except for their respective homepages. Wickethewok 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Comment, I would think all of their product pages should be rolled into this Afd--Nick Y. 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - When this concludes, I'll attempt to figure out what should be nominated, unless you would like to add it to this nom (I would have no objections to that). Does anyone have any thoughts on Stardock (TotalGaming's parent company)? It seems like a possibly notable company, though the article is certainly original research as well. Wickethewok 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep let's wait for notability establishment and sources. No reason to delete this. --Liface 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article editor has five days to do so. If no sources are able to be provided, do you agree that this should be deleted then? Wickethewok 22:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with additional referencing: Hi there! Primary article editor here . . .

Firstly, I think people are mistaking this for an article about a website, possibly because of the article's name. It is not - it is about a subscription service/system, which happens to have a website. That is why the majority of the content is about the details of the subscription service and a description of the games on it. It should be considered in relation to articles like Steam (content delivery). As the website's actual address is totalgaming.stardock.com, the site's traffic is absorbed by alexa's stardock.com entry, which had a rank of 6,321 as of today (this doesn't count WinCustomize, which is primarily a website, ranked 3,545).

TotalGaming.net's notability rides on the fact that it is a commercially-successful digital distribution systems for computer video games (not something founded with venture capital that didn't actually provide a viable product). It was in production before Valve had even announced their offering, and it has been running for over five years now. I know it's hard to prove commercial success for a privately-owned company, but put it this way - I don't think we would have kept doing it for that long if we didn't make any money out of it. :-)

The game articles that are linked in the text (within the Games section) are there because they were there already. I did not start any of them, although I am the majority contributor to Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. I used external links for the rest of the games precisely because I felt that was better than creating redlinks on the page for things which had not yet been judged notable by others. On reflection, I've commented these out from Template:Stardock as well - I was trying to be comprehensive, but they just clutter it up. Perhaps it would be a better article without the external links, either? It seems hard to judge a service's relevance without knowing what games are on it, though - that's why I've kept the list updated.

I will try to improve this article's referencing. I know I can get some more specific and additional sources for some of it - for example, I'm pretty sure Penny Arcade has commented on the service. Right now I'm a little busy with WikiFur and my presentation for Wikimania (as well as, you know, actual work ;-), but I should be able to do what I can by the end of the week. --GreenReaper 16:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. KleenupKrew 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per GreenReaper. Seems like more than just an advertising article. The Inquirer (quoted source) is a fairly reputable publication. Tevildo 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well-written article, but with only one independent third-party source listed, notability is an issue. And even the referenced article says of Stardock - "Stardock Entertainment, a small indie publisher..." None of the plethora of game articles linked seem particularly notable either. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find some more that aren't built mostly from our material. The game industry has an unfortunate habit of taking a press release and putting it out there and calling it news. GreenReaper 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Stardock--TBCTaLk?!? 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually split it out from Stardock because it was getting too large, and because it seemed odd to be talking about a company and a digital content system in the same article. I can try putting some of the content and references back in there if suggested for merging/deleting. Some more information about what particular segments of the article people do and do not like (rather than just "original research" or "non-notable") would be helpful for knowing what to keep in that case. GreenReaper 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement, original research, also fails WP:WEB. No, I'm not mistaking this article for being about a website, I'm identifying this as an advertisement selling company services, written by a company employee (thereby failing WP:NPOV). Tychocat 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It fails NPOV if it is written non-neutrally, not because I wrote it. If you have specific complaints, please raise them and I'm more than willing to try and correct them. If you think it is selling company services, please tell me what parts of the article you think are inappropriate, and why - or edit it yourself, if you do not trust me to do so to your satisfaction.

I've been a Wikipedian for longer than I've been a Stardock employee, and I have tried to write a neutral, informative article about TotalGaming.net, which I believe to be notable for the reasons stated above. I'm willing to work with others who feel that I am missing something. However, I cannot "fix" complaints that don't have a specific solution. GreenReaper 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Dr Zak 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else I can say in regards to that. I've done my best to make sure that the article is verifiable, if mostly from primary sources. I feel that TotalGaming/Drengin.net is a notable topic for being one of the first successful systems for the online distribution of games on a large scale, even if it has not been the most popular of those that emerged after it (not everyone has Half-Life 2 to promote their distribution system :-). Isn't covering a concept's origins as well as the current behemoths part of Wikipedia's goals? GreenReaper 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one referenced reliable source [83] isn't enough for me to consider this notable, and the material sure looks like original research. --William Pietri 21:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular material? The other sources are primary sources for the factual data they cover on the history of the content system (being mostly annoucements by Stardock employees Frogboy (Brad Wardell) and Yarlen). I guess the reasoning for the changes in the service over time should be attributed specifically to them, though there might be better references for that (would probably be more forum posts by Brad, I'm sure he's talked about it at some point . . .). GreenReaper 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you work for Stardock, I think using Stardock sources to write up an article on a Stardock product is too much like original research for my tastes. Sorry, I agree with WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN : if you do something important enough to merit an encyclopedia article, you should trust others to notice that. And I think that goes as well for the corporate "you" as the personal one. I'd encourage you to put the material elsewhere on the Internet, though. --William Pietri 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed prefer to use non-Stardock sources, but frankly the only ones I could find that had sufficient detail on the mechanisms of subscription were just repeating our press releases, as so many sites do. It seemed better to have an authoritative source for that. There aren't many references on the Steam article that are about the system itself, either - it seems not many people like to write seriously about content delivery systems, just the games that are on them. I've just been told Red Herring will be bringing a significant review out soon, but it's hardly a source before it's released. Maybe it will become useful at a later date. And thanks for the suggestion - I'll bear it in mind! GreenReaper 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really hate disagreeing with GreenReaper, as he's a nice guy and I have a lot of respect for his work (Wikifur rules!), but I'm just not seeing enough non-Stardock sources. Also, as a general rule of thumb company and product articles should be written by non-employees. Regretfully delete at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem! If you think it should be deleted, then that's exactly the right thing to say. I would prefer to change people's minds through reasoned argument - if my arguments are not convincing enough, then you should give your opinion based on that, rather than who I am. :-) GreenReaper 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, faild WP:WEB, of the references supplied only one is not a forum/the website itself. Notability not established. Inner Earth 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to Stardock Central - If an informative article about one content delivery system (ie Steam) is acceptable then I don't see why an article about this content delivery system should be zapped. At worst, the information in this article should be placed in the Stardock Central article, not wiped out altogether. -Spectere 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? - I don't think your argument makes a lot of sense. Steam is ~~infinitely~~ more popular. Just because we have articles about one music player (iTunes) doesn't mean "Joe Shmo's Mp3 Playa" is acceptable. Similarly, just because we have an article about one content delivery service, doesn't mean every content delivery service meets WP standards for inclusion. Also, you didn't address any of the opposing arguments made here. Wickethewok 13:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitely so? No? Vastly? I don't know, where's the figures to compare? It'd be interesting to know that for TotalGaming.net as well - I have no doubt that Steam has more users, but the proportion that are there just for Half Life is perhaps a more relevant question (the same should be asked for Stardock's Galactic Civilizations II, of course).

In any consideration of the content delivery system as a whole (not just the games part, which was separated out in this article) you need to include all the applications which are provided to Object Desktop subscribers through Stardock Central (which has used a more rudimentary system since at least 1998; as with one of the first instances of "software as a service"). The games have historically been the "fun" for Stardock, while the apps have been the money. This may not apply so much this year, given GC2's success (beyond our most optimistic targets), but it has up to now.

I think that if this article is deleted it would make more sense to merge/redirect the material about the content (what games are on the service, etc.) to Stardock and perhaps add some of the material about the mechanics of the service itself to Stardock Central, as the same system is used for both the games and the applications (Drengin.net was essentially the "beta test" of the system before Stardock switched over the more important applications side of things from Component Manager, the previous delivery system). GreenReaper 17:14, 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 delete. Rob ert 18:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Valentinovich Belov[edit]

Fails google test. pointless school teacher. Would need more text or proofs if ever true Abdelkweli 19:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page title corrected. - Andre Engels 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. University teacher rather than schoolteacher, but those too are included (if they are included) for their scientific work, not for their quirks as a teacher. - Andre Engels 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above; WP:PROF and WP:BIO--TBCTaLk?!? 13:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing on ru:WP, no assertion of natbility, really. I almost zapped it... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic entry, seems like a vanity page of some sort. No verifiablity is possible. (sorry, i hate the word "notable", as it's subjective) --Aknorals 00:20, 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. Ichiro 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Oricon Top 100 Singles[edit]

There are many music charts on Wikipedia. This is totally unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not some place to look at a radio station's music charts. This should be deleted. Terence Ong ^Talk 08:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is clearly magazine material. Delete spam. -MegamanZero|Talk 08:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about all the other similar ones? 2004 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 2003 Oricon Top 100 Singles, 2005 Oricon Top 20 Albums -- Mikeblas 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I will find time to nominate all these for AFD. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Here are some others you might review: KROQ Top 106.7 Countdown of 1980,

Delete all as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 12:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above. Sliggy 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of Kappa's comments. I missed the significance of the Oricon chart; my error. No vote. Sliggy 21:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nominated article, and delete all those listed by Mikeblas above, as unencyclopedic, for reasons I've argued on deletion pages before. Barno 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like List of number-one hits (United States), helps wikipedia users find out what bands and songs were popular in Japan in 2005. Kappa 18:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why are Japan's main music charts being compared with those of some random radio station in the US? Kappa 18:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it's a convenient way to explore what topics are acceptable and which aren't. KROQ is an influential station and an industry pioneer, BTW. -- Mikeblas 19:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see how it's convenient to compare a country of 100 million people to a radio station with maybe 1 million listeners. In fact it seems highly misleading. Kappa 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's the topics that are being compared; nobody is comparing the country to the radio station. -- Mikeblas 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me reprase then: It's highly misleading to compare record sales in a large country with listener votes to a moderately-sized radio station. Kappa 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Did I do something that suggests I'm so deceitful or biased? I'm just pointing out similar topics -- countdown lists. If we want to establish a guideline, then maybe we'll find that guideline will include the scope of the countdown lists as a way to discern which should go and which should stay. -- Mikeblas 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that there has been some concern that lists such as this are copyright problems. Does anyone know anything more about this? Jkelly 18:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa —Wahoofive (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Oricon charts. End the bias. -- JJay 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa, as much as I dislike music charts in general. However the code really needs to be changed to something much simpler and easier to edit, either just a list, like those KROQ articles or a more clean table using class="wikitable" (see usage example at Pieces of You, scroll down). Can I go ahead and do this to the Oricon articles or should I wait until the AfD is over? --Qirex 03:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and cleaned 'em up. -- Jonel | Speak 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - This is the equivalent of the American Billboard Charts in Japan. There is a widening American audience for Japanese pop music, much of which is obtained here by importing the CDs, CD-R and mp3 trading, etc., and many of the artists that make this chart are notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. --CJ Marsicano 07:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all chart lists. Uncencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a database hoster. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Japanese singles and albums chart information is obtained from this chart. The site is extremely notable (Alexa ranking of 2,286). It is similar to deleting the Rolling Stone magazine lists. -- ReyBrujo 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This page is a good resource for music fans. It's an organized list and is accurate. This is one of the few English sites that houses all of this data.--Stzr3 20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the few place with accurate sales figures and there are a lot of anonymous users changing figures back and forth. KittenKlub 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. If we kill off this, we may as well start hacking at the Billboard charts listed. As mentioned above, JPop, Shibuya-kei and such are becoming more and more popular in the US and other English speaking nations, and this is one indicator of that popularity.--Mitsukai 16:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Xoloz. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/60kb[edit]

It's supposed to be a place to work on the United States page, but has not been edited for 2 weeks. In the meantime, the page itself has been edited 1000 times. If anyone wants to make changes to the page, making them to the page directly will be easier than making them here and then resolve a thousand edit conflicts afterward

Delete. It's a matter of housekeeping, isn't it? -- Mikeblas 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one could have been taken to PROD...--Isotope23 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is PROD? - Andre Engels 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry that was a bit arcane wasn't it? Wikipedia:Proposed deletion aka WP:PROD. It is a mechanism for deleting pages where it is expected not to be a contentious issue. Perfect for housekeeping activities.--Isotope23 16:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I'll try to remember next time. - Andre Engels 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sandbox pages don't belong on the Wikipedia name space--TBCTaLk?!? 13:39, 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 Deleted by Xoloz. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States/79kb[edit]

The 'current' version (that is, 2 weeks or 1000 edits ago) for United States/60kb, which I have nominated above.

Delete. It's a matter of housekeeping, isn't it? -- Mikeblas 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one could have been taken to PROD...--Isotope23 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as mentioned on above AfD, sandbox pages don't belong on the article namespace.--TBCTaLk?!? 13:50, 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 this eyesore, since the creator freely admits it is complete bollocks from beginning to end. Just zis Guy you know? 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fetish List[edit]

NN, unreferenced, and plain - oh lord knows how to describe it. Long. Bored kid in a school lesson. Coz it says so. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy. It's nonsense. -- Mikeblas 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't quite work up to a "speedy". Happy to have it speedied, though. it is... well, no real words describe it. Long. That's the word. Actually it's pretty much vanity for a group of giggling kids. Fiddle Faddle 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. From article: " The list has been seen by many to be an immature and silly thing." Add me to that list. PJM 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not patent nonsense but WP:NFT for sure. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Mr Stephen 13:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1. Nominated accordingly. Tevildo 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article is not patent nonsense. Please remember that CSD G1 does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. --TBCTaLk?!? 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NFT and WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zos 18:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to AlanMarsden. GassyGuy 19:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or Speedy. Whatever the hell you do, don't userfy it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that you asked, but just to explain myself the same, while this page is certainly far from article criteria, it does describe a bit about the creator and his personality, which is more than I can say for other user pages deemed acceptable, like this one, for example. I certainly won't be weeping when this is deleted, but I thought I'd throw the suggestion out just the same. GassyGuy 06:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Complete scrotum content. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean WP:BALLS don't you? Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It was conceived and written by Alan Marsden out of boredom in a 4th year maths class at Bell Baxter High School, Scotland. Tantamount to confession. SM247^{My Talk} 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure where "4th year maths" falls agewise, but all I can picture from this article is a bunch of sniggering thirteen-year-old boys clustered around a computer in the back of the school library in study hall. Opabinia regalis 03:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, absolute textbook example of WP:NFT. Also fails WP:NOR, WP:HOAX and WP:BALLS. Also fails WP:V and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AH-HA!!!!!! Yeah I know, I'm just a time waster. A big fat Wiki time waster. The article's complete crap. It will not be wikified - EVER. It is a gargantuan slice of irrelevant nonsense. Thank you for the time you wasted.

Regards, Alan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanmarsden (talk • contribs)

Since that was the creator can we speedy it, please? Fiddle Faddle 20:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yeah, I agree with the rest. This makes no sense. It seems to be nothing but a random list just to get attention from people looking at the "Long Pages" list(like me). --RandomOrca2 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete' - as per everyone above, Wiki:not and common sense. Amists 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per - well, everybody really. WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 10:44, 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. Rob ert 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ganadu'r[edit]

Non notable game: 1300 players after 5 years, 28 distinct Google hits, no reviews found Fram 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOFT. As nom mentioned, few google results [84]--TBCTaLk?!? 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 01:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the reasons above, and only 2 editors ever. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:49, 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. Rob ert 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prahfitz Ov Inzaniti[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC as they've got no major or minor-label releases. Searching for that very unique name yields about 60 matches. Mikeblas 12:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. PJM 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND, no allmusic profile--TBCTaLk?!? 13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Travelbird 16:27, 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. Rob ert 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid State Group[edit]

advert Travelbird 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:AD. -- Mikeblas 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:CORP and WP:ADS--TBCTaLk?!? 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Buy your own ad space. SM247^{My Talk} 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamvert. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:04, 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. Rob ert 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Baba[edit]

non-notable Hanuman Das 13:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Few relevant Google results [85], some of which are from Wikipedia and its mirrors--TBCTaLk?!? 13:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with arguments of nn per WP:BIO. ---Baba Louis 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN and WP:V Zos 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ImpuMozhi 02:00, 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. Rob ert 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Line? CBS Cast Guide[edit]

Listcruft, with no discernable encyclopedic value. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 13:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per listcruft. Ydam 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. SM247^{My Talk} 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate listcruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:04, 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. Rob ert 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introspexual[edit]

non-notable musician Travelbird 13:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. No allmusic results and only 132 Google results [86]--TBCTaLk?!? 13:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notabilty can be found for this artist. Has not released an album as of yet. DrunkenSmurf 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 16:56, 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. Rob ert 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solvency II[edit]

advertisement Travelbird 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP--TBCTaLk?!? 13:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. PJM 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, I'd say 'wiktionary' if it were a real term. Tempshill 16:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spam spam spam.... SM247^{My Talk} 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article eats ham and jam and WP:SPAM a lot... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 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. On a side note, it's also a blatant copyvio of [87]. Rob ert 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Solutions, Inc.[edit]

Reads like advertising and/or a press release Neier 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. Three relevant google results [88], all of which are from Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PJM 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, goodness; it's even written in first person. Blatant adcopy. Kuru ^talk 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Travelbird 16:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article with a section entitled "Our Story" belongs in the trash heap. SmartGuy 16:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Tempshill 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spam spam spam... SM247^{My Talk} 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPAM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I smell bacon. "Our Story" is a good hint. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:51, 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 creator admitted to the hoax in an email - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse[edit]

Does not exist, and neither do the authors (200 issues and not one Google hit?): I'll put all realted pages (and there are a lot) under this AfD as well, but it may take a while... Fram 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed for deletion:

Arlo Destan
Murton Banks
Captain Willy Peter
Wallet Lands
Wallet lands
Bacon Brigade
Chutney McDermott
Uncle Buttcake
Arty Chumpett
Charpedo Jones
Mandible Patrol
Oswald Van Butter
Fagatini Gobbo
Order of the Fagatini
Dr. Hugh G. Blackman
Octavion Manhamster (attorney at law)
Doc Barnacle
Left Cake City
John Jon St. John Junior

Delete per WP:V and possibly WP:HOAX--TBCTaLk?!? 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super Delete unbelievable hoax of ridiculous audacity! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have awarded the uploader a 24 hour block and a compliment on the quality of s/his hoax. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Transparent hoax. Now, if the article authors were to put their obviously considerable creative powers towards an actual comic strip... Tevildo 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete immediately as hoax. NawlinWiki 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX and plausibly WP:VAIN. Jdcooper 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX Travelbird 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , hoax. PJM 17:31, 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 Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiyodo[edit]

Delete per concern over WP:CORP and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bome - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The company is included in the Japanese wikipedia, with edits going back to 2003. I added the transwiki link, in case anyone is interested. Neier 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the Bome article was deleted since it was a copyvio, but as for the Kaiyodo article I'm not entirely sure...--TBCTaLk?!? 14:13, 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 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passport Software[edit]

Press release(?) from the only other IP to edit Real Solutions, Inc. (also listed above) Neier 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP, Only 539 Google results [89]--TBCTaLk?!? 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, nn company. Note that writer is Passportsoftware, whose only contribution, oddly enough, is this article. Likely vanity, and fails NPOV. Tychocat 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement Travelbird 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Tempshill 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, fails WP:ADS and WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:06, 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. Rob ert 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ballon Fight/Kid games and cameos[edit]

This unsightly table proposes to become a list of video game cameos, which is not encyclopedic. Pagra shtak 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ballon Fight--TBCTaLk?!? 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isin't anything really worth keeping Ydam 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, that table makes almost no sense. The Balloon Fight article is fine without it. Recury 17:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather crufty as all the games are Balloon Fight/Kid games anyway. --ColourBurst 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already in Balloon Fight, so there's no need for this separate article. --Musicpvm 08:48, 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. Rob ert 18:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy_Records[edit]

Article is completely unencyclopedic in style, and the second paragraph utterly fails to meet NPOV policy. JamJar 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP. 734 relevant Google results [90]--TBCTaLk?!? 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CORP. Is an advertisement, article text is lifted verbatim from a MySpace page. Tychocat 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Incidentally, since POV content or tone can be edited away...that's not really an issue. PJM 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Tempshill 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB, WP:ADS, and WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 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 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of the Covenant[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

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

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

Another content fork by User:TheEditrix, who has been going through the bible, creating articles on works mentioned there that are no longer extant. A "Book of the Covenant" is briefly mentioned in Exodus 24:7. We have an entry on the Covenant Code, which is probably what the author of the above passage had in mind.

No one refers to the work mentioned as the "Lost book of the covenant", and all this article contains is unreferenced speculation. Dr Zak 14:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not familiar with the subject, the article seems to be original research without any sort of verification, thus delete--TBCTaLk?!? 14:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. speculating there was a "Book of the Covenant" different than the Covenant Code that was somehow lost to history is not supported by serious, scholarly, verified evidence that any such book ever existed and furthermore, the very name of the article appears to be a neologism.--Isotope23 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempshill 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Covenant Code --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Em-jay-es 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per Isotope23. Tevildo 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you actually read the verse in the context, you realize that it's referring to the covenant that has actually been made right there in the story. While the books referenced in the Hebrew Bible but no longer extant are an interesting subject, this flat-out isn't one of them. --KJPurscell 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect, non-notable original research. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The supposition that the Book of the Covenant mentioned in the Bible is equal to what a particular minority of people call the Covenant Code is mere speculation. There is no internal evidence that they are one and the same, and frankly, no external evidence. Calling them identical WOULD be original research; noting that the Bible mentions the Book of the Covenant is NOT original research. This article notes the possibility that they are the same, without making the speculative ASSERTION that they are the same. Ipso facto, this article deserves to stay. It fits well within the parameters of the parent article, Lost books of the Old Testament. --The Editrix 01:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is nothing more then another attempt by User:Dr. Zak to harass and chase away the author. This article is new and this is not rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) Delete POV False Prophet 22:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The above statement is incorrect and misleading. Valid reasons stand behind this nomination (i.e. it is a fork and it fails WP:POV and WP:OR). The nomination stands for itself and it is nothing personal. That it has become personal is not the fault of Dr Zak. Em-jay-es 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think The Editrix ought to at least be able to finish the article before we go voting it away. Apparantely, this is all the author's speculation? Perhaps if the article were allowed to be finished sources might be added. Again, keep at least until the article is finished. Vote again if the article isn't good enough at that point. shijeru 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what will giving the author several more weeks accomplish? WP:AGF, but if this is original research, we just have to go through another AfD in a month or so. If this is not original research, it should take no more than 20 minutes for the originator to post the sources she obtained this thesis from in the article. Just naming Book X, website Y, where this thesis has been published would help. Besides, no article is ever really "finished" in a collaborative project like this.--Isotope23 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment: Twenty minutes. Done. Concern responded to, no longer relevant. --The Editrix 17:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have added the {{afdanons}} note per the talk page spamming Dr Zak has pointed out on other AFDs. It is inappropriate to spam talk pages to lobby for a keep. This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. If you can't convince a group of Wikipedians that your article is encyclopedic, then it needs to go. BigDT 04:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Postpone 1-2 weeks. Give the author a week or two to come up with acceptable sources for the thesis if she can, otherwise Delete per WP:OR. --Shirahadasha 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What is holding back for another week going to achieve? Five minutes is all it takes to insert the reference to the monograph or webpage that were the source for the article. Dr Zak 18:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:WING Avi 17:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, specifically some sources would be good. --Guinnog 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note on Exodus 24:7 on p. 117 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The book of the covenant (Josh 24.25-26) contains the covenant laws, and here is implicitly identified with 'the words' and 'the ordinances' (v.3)".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptdecker (talk • contribs)

Comments on Keep -- Note addition of ~~two~~ three authoritative sources demonstrating thesis. OR concerns above moot. More sources to come. --The Editrix 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at the sources I'm still not convinced this is verified via reliable sources. I can find just as many sources (if not more) that say that JFK was assinated by the CIA... but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Furthermore one of your sources states [91] "There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text." This in no ways suggests that there is a "Book of the Covenant" that was "lost" from the bible and in fact points out there are no authoritative sources for this text. The Hackwriters site mentions this "Book of the Covenant" but never suggests it was once part of the Torah, or added to the Old Testament when it was compiled. Ditto for [92], which mentions the passage from 2 Kings but in no way sources or supports the sections of this article which are not scriptural quotes. This just repeats the first source. Unless I missed something [93] doesn't even mention the book of the covenant. This makes the whole article other than the scripture quotes, the statment "no copies are known to exist...", and the website quote "...there 'are no authoritative sources' for this attribution...." original research. I think that last statement is the most telling.--Isotope23 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Daily Show, and Redirect to that article. Reasoning as follows: there were many "X or Y" comments, but sorting them all out and putting the least-destructive option first, I get 6 Deletes and 4 Merge, counting a Redirect as basically a Delete. To my mind, that is not enough of a majority to by itself force a Delete. So then we look to the arguments. Do the Delete arguments win the day? In my opinion, they don't have enough of an edge by themselves to force a Delete. It's very close. There really isn't a consensus; my sense is that Merge is the best solution, with a Redirect since it was mentioned by a couple of commentors and costs little. Herostratus 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal's Paradox[edit]

This page was deleted pursuant to an earlier AfD. A DRV consensus concluded that the AfD was closed before sufficient time had been given to consider expansion or redirecting. It is worth noting that the DRV discussion showed support especially for the redirect alternative. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Daily Show--TBCTaLk?!? 15:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Daily Show. Not enough to say about it to warrant its own article. Ydam 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete If we start adding every fake concept some show host has invented, Wikpedia will soon be full of unencyclopedic "facts". The information should be moved to The Daily Show, the redirect page deleted. Travelbird 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this subject is exactly as notable as the article nominated for deletion below, The Elephant Statue, a statue that is present in a single episode of Thomas the Tank Engine. Non-notable. Tempshill 16:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It doesn't help to say that it's as notable as some other article that's up for deletion, let's look at this objectively here, in its own light.KV(Talk) 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I don't care too much about which way at this point. But I want to see the information kept in some manner. If this remains a redirect page with the merge, then if it is expanded upon enough to become something like Truthiness we can recreate the page.KV(Talk) 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect: either way its a small topic which can be added to another page. Zos 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete swiftly. Shenme 04:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merge, no redirect. Wikipedia is not a list of every joke ever made on the Daily Show. -- GWO
Delete. I generally take what I consider to be an inclusionist approach to wikipedia, but this article is just too much. Unexpandable and nonnotable. -PlasmaDragon 22:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I deleted the page first time around because I felt the consensus was clear, and because there was no reason for the page to exist. I still feel that it should be deleted. DS 14:13, 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. Rob ert 18:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JBC Training[edit]

Blatant advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 15:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP. 151 relevant Google results [94]--TBCTaLk?!? 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP Ydam 16:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempshill 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Elonka 03:54, 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. Rob ert 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Narcissist[edit]

Hoax novel; not on Google or Amazon, and no author mentioned. NawlinWiki 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tychocat 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book, few Google results [95]--TBCTaLk?!? 15:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable novel. Doesn't even mention the name of the author Ydam 16:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax Travelbird 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tempshill 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-verifiability. SM247^{My Talk} 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:09, 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 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Malone[edit]

No assertion of notability, tone suggests self-penned, therefore vanity, google returns fewer than 1000 hits, none of which seemed to refer to this Aaron Malone, unverified and POV claims of talent and skill. Jdcooper 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcooper 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:BIO and WP:VAIN--TBCTaLk?!? 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Tempshill 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavily edited and hence less awful than before. --TruthbringerToronto 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, good work on removing the POV, but topic is still unsalvageably non-notable. Jdcooper 08:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music + vanity--Nick Y. 21:24, 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 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lansa[edit]

This is a technical nomination because an anon user started this nomination but didn't finish it. --TruthbringerToronto 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user 84.160.232.48 84.160.232.48|Talk wrote on the Lansa page: ::Without an account I can not complete the steps as prescribed in wikipedia's policy manuals - maybe someone else with an account will take this issue up. Obviously this page is merely an advertisement for Lansa and their product. Neither company nor products are noteworthy or even unique enough to be presented in such a fashion on WP

Keep. Big company, thoroughly notable. Puzzled why anon user doesn't have an account. The IP number 84.160.232.48 is assigned to Deutsche Telekom AG. --TruthbringerToronto 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM, no assertion that company passes WP:CORP, apostrophe abuse. Tevildo 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Keep . Seems to be a fairly large company with quite a number of Google hits. Travelbird 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. Tempshill 16:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Travelbird. But all the advert sections and extra logos need to go. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement, also fails WP:CORP. Fail to see what cleanup would do, except make it a shorter advert. Tychocat 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads as an advertisement, fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability.--Nick Y. 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. KleenupKrew 10:59, 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 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School to Home Communications[edit]

advertisement Travelbird 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not an advertisement, but notes from a conference of the Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools. Probably not salvageable. Would anyone care to create an article on the Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools http://www.pnais.org/ --TruthbringerToronto 16:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bunch of notes, not an encyclopedia article. Tempshill 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:10, 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 speedy delete (recreation of deleted content). If you dispute this, please seek deletion review. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Rada[edit]

This is a vanity article, citing no references. I can't find any media reference so far yet online, except self-made publicity on discussion forums or music communities. Moreover, this article has been removed before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada. LimoWreck 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be an artist locally known in South America, has quite a number of Google hits [96].
- that 's the problem, have you checked those google hits ? You should also do a good Google check: add "Angel Rada" between quotes [97] : 606 results, Usually some unknown communities, forums, sites where you can add yourself etc., sites where one can add his own mp3s, a homepage on geocities, etc... I've written and read articles about lots of "exotic", old or unknown artist, and even in those lesser known cases I could find references to serious sources... I'd like to see some serious reviews and articles about this man; since we can't judge if he's a million selling artist, or a local artist promoting his work through the internet... --LimoWreck 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page, notability not backed up by any concrete sources. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The user who created this identifies himself as User:Angelrada, and his only other edits seem to have been adding links to Angel Rada in relevant articles and defending this article when someone objected to it. Thus, severe problems with Wikipedia:Autobiography and close to being a vanity piece (although I am reluctant to actually call this vanity). - Andre Engels 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an extra reason for delete: recreated after being deleted in an earlier AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada. - Andre Engels 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added references, which seem to be add up to notability. Seems to have lots of credentials. --TruthbringerToronto 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- don't know, that are exactly those google "references" i talked about: online communities where one can add his own music...

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. Most Ghits are from download sites, with a lot of the same quoted biographical material everywhere. References listed in article are personal commentary from downloaders, rather than having multiple non-trivial articles by unconnected sources. Unable to find much-quoted "El Nacional" article online except from his bios. Tychocat 18:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as repost!--Nick Y. 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-G4, repost of deleted material. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:11, 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, it turns out that Americans of French descent actually redirects to this article, so I'm going to leave it as is and leave it to the editors to decide which article should redirect to the other. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Americans[edit]

Americans of French descent page is a more extensive list of French Americans. Unecessary to merge the two. Need to erase this one as everyone listed is also listed in Americans of French Descent. Also need to categorize Americans of French Descent page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_of_French_descent Abdelkweli 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but shouldn't Americans_of_French_descent be named List of Americans_of_French_descent Ydam 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ydam. Travelbird 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect yep i changed my mind, let's just redirect List of French Americans to Americans of French Descent. Abdelkweli 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no need for this redirect and no encyclopedic value in "Americans of French descent" Mad Jack 23:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'List of French Americans' matches the naming pattern used for the 100+ 'list of xxx Americans' articles. There is no reason to change this article and no reason to make this article an exception to the name pattern. Since none of the articles involved were tagged in any way, I made these changes prior to noticing this 'delete' entry. Thanks Hmains 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"""" is there a way to recover the talk from the original page? Now they have been merged it just appears I've been removing people from the list for no reason! --Charlesknight 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I recovered the talk. It's there now. Mad Jack 23:14, 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 by Xoloz. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kimberworth Treeswing[edit]

It doesn't meet any speedy criteria, except maybe patent nonsense. But this is unverifiable, unnotable and should really be deleted. Irongargoyle 16:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to be a {{db-nocontext}} - CSD A1 - candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call... I wasn't thinking there. Irongargoyle 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as utterly non-notable. Travelbird 16:55, 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. Rob ert 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Statue[edit]

Article about a statue that was in a single episode of Thomas the Tank Engine. Non-notable. Tempshill 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Elephant only appeared in one Season 7 episode, and resembles the real elephant featured in Season 4." Come on. What next !!??. Speedy delete. Travelbird 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete miniature prop from one episode of a notable kid's show. There is a notable elephant statue at Singapore Parliament House though if anyone desperately wants to do a redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just delete. William Pietri 21:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsensical and non-notable. Also not a speedy candidate, sadly. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:12, 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. – Avi 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murphy (politician)[edit]

Another election candidate. Non-notable. Delete.BlueValour 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the official Democratic nominee, and he has the funds to mount a credible challenge against the incumbant, Mike Fitzpatrick. He is also an Iraqi War Vet running for Congress. That makes him notable. --Asbl 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry I disagree. We have a concensus on here that candidates are not notable (we are also weeding out UK candidates). There are, sadly, very many Iraqi War Vets. BlueValour 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But only a small fraction of them are running for Congress. Are you going to put Paul Hackett up for an AfD? --Asbl 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you aren't seriously suggesting that Murphy is as notable as Hackett! (Are you?) wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. They are both veterans of the Iraqi war who then became candidates for Congress. The only difference is that Hackett has lost, and Murphy is still running. --Asbl 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some candidates or campaigns receive so much attention that they are notable, even in losing. That campaign gathered a huge amount of press, not just in the district, but in the national press, which makes it notable. The point is that merely being a candidate (and gathering some local press for being one) is not sufficient to be considered notable, and right now we're seeing a lot of articles for people who have no claim of notability other than that they're running for something. Fan1967 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Winning a primary and being a major party's nominee is certainly notable. --Asbl 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous policy and it's unhealthy for democracy. If you consider Patrick Murphy non-notable, then what the hell is notable about Mike Fitzgerald? There are certainly many notable Congressmen, but he's not exactly one of them. Why is Wikipedia arbitrarily deciding that US Congressmen are all notable regardless of whether they've done anything notable but their opponents are not. I especially don't like being told by some British wanker that Federal candidates aren't notable. What do you know about anything American anyway? You can't even spell valour. Ortcutt 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just checked that the challenger in my district doesn't have an article (yet). Despite the fact that I'll vote for him, I don't think he deserves an article, either. (As an aside, I might be willing to support a policy change to keep such articles if someone could arrange a self-destruct mechanism to delete them the day after the election unless they win. The problem is that these things get created and, like the campaign signs by the side of the road, the people who put them up never clean them up afterward.) Fan1967 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea, Fan1967 Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was under the assumption from past AfDs that consensus leaned towards major party candidates for national legislatures were worthy of inclusion. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concensus from recent AFDs has been not to include candidates, there are many thousands across the world, and often the entry is of the press-release type rather than being encyclopaedic. A further problem that has developed is that outlined by Fan1967 above, we get left with large numbers of dated articles that do WP a disservice. BlueValour 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question: I've missed that, which ones? Were they major party nominees for nat'l legislatures? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they come through here, regularly, as someone finds them. It's often a fight when someone insists on trying to argue that being the fourth-party (can't discriminate against the Greens and Libertarians, now, can we?) candidate in a race two years ago makes someone notable. Fan1967 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one thing, being a candidate for Federal office in a general election certainly makes someone notable. Second, do we really want Wikipedia to be in the business of deciding that incumbents are notable but challengers aren't. That's not really serving the public. Third, there are many wikipedia pages for Congressional candidates, like Nick Lampson, Francine Busby, Diane Farrell, [[John D. Jacob], etc... It's seems a little inconsistent to decide that Patrick Murphy is non-notable. Ortcutt 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason there are so many WP articles for candidates is that they have put them there and we haven't found them yet! Unless those candidates are notable in their own right, and I am not prejudging this, an AfD will follow. We are an encyclopaedia and record notable events. If the candidate wins they become notable by definiton. It is the candiadtes who are playing politics not us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueValour (talk • contribs) .

You seem to be missing the point that being a candidate for federal office in and of itself makes them notable people. I don't understand how you can't grasp that. Ortcutt 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many people who do not share that viewpoint. I live in a district where the Democratic candidate for congress is usually whoever volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb against a safe incumbent. Is that candidate notable? No, he's just being a good sport on behalf of the party, becuase the guy who did it the last two elections decided it was someone else's turn. Fan1967 13:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Any US citizen can be a candidate for Federal Office. E Pluribus Unum. Hmm, the things they make political interns these days. Why, I remember a time when... herm never mind Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any US citizen can be a candidate, but that doesn't mean that they are. Beyond that, he's not just a candidate. He's the winner of the 2006 Democratic Primary election for PA-08. Ortcutt 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any American of legal age for the office in question with no disqualifications can run for the United States House of Representatives or any other office. This candidate, however, got the nomination for the office from one of the two major parties. This is a bit more specific than that. I support deletion, however of those articles on candidates that failed in the primary. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about third parties? Fourth? We had a by-election a few months back in suburban Ottawa where four of the six candidates had articles here. Fan1967 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, major parties. Some countries have two, some three, and so on. In Canada, I would argue the Libs, Cons, NDP, and BQ as "major." youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, are you gonna get hate mail from the Greens, for participating in the campaign to keep them down ;-) Not to mention the Christian Heritagers, the PPP, etc. Uh, tell me, who decides what party is major? Fan1967 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would need some discussion. Probably a tradition of possessing seats in said body, but yea, that would need some talk. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, he is a current major party congressional candidate [98]. Bring back up for AFD after November if he loses, but not now. KleenupKrew 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that many (probably most) mere candidates are neither credible candidates nor important people. Downticket candidates, sacrificial lambs, and crank third-party or independent candidates don't deserve pages. However, there are surely some major races (in the U.S., governor, Senate, and highly competitive House races) for which a major candidate should be kept. Just a few weeks ago, I was disappointed to find that Jon Grunseth (disgraced 1990 candidate for Minnesota governor) lacked a Wikipedia page, even though he was part of an interesting chapter in Minnesota political history. 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bschak (talk • contribs) .
Keep. He's a major candidate and is getting interesting attention. I'm pretty sure he was in a WaPo article not long ago about the Iraq vets the Dems are putting up for Congress, as well, although I can't confirm that now. Article is long enough to be more than just a stub, and is fairly dense with relevant (not spammy) information, which together should also weigh in its favor. Captainktainer * Talk 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. like Asbl said Winning a primary and being a major party's nominee is certainly notable. grazon 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: There is a lot of discussion of notability - I come down on the side of major party nominee for Congress is notable. But more important this encyclopedia is supposed to be helpful. And the entry for Partick Murphy is that. What other criteria do we need? [email protected] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.142.72 (talk • contribs) . (moved and reformatted by Asbl 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - winning a major-party primary for a US congressional district is certainly notable. What possible purpose is served by deleting this article? After all, Wikipedia is not paper. FWIW, "'Patrick Murphy' congress" gets 216,000 google hits -- Sholom 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are less than 400 candidates per year (to be more specific, 600 to 700 per two-year election cycle) who (a) are running for the U.S. House or U.S. Senate (as opposed to a state, county, or city/town elected position, of which there are tens of thousands), and (b) have won their respective major party primary. John Broughton 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major party candidate for substantial office Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why not? There is lots of space on Wikipedia and apparently people who care about this entry. I'd argue further that entries attracting debate are particularly worth keeping so they can evolve. Rx: Shape this article up though, or I will say delete it. It's written very badly.Mc4932 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob ert 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Klein (Politician)[edit]

Failed election candidate. Non-notable. BlueValour 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn --Nick Y. 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed already in the primaries. Punkmorten 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed in primaries. This one probably would have worked as a prod. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Youngamerican. KleenupKrew 11:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the guy, but he didn't get much in the way of buzz, nor was he particularly relevant to the campaign. Kind of a shame. Captainktainer * Talk 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Treebark 22:21, 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 Keep but bring down to a stub (presumably, this means remove all the stuff marked as "citation needed"). Deathphoenix ʕ 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and slavery[edit]

This article has a heck of a lot of original research, is very long, convoluted, has large chunks of POV, and has never been successfully re-written or edited down. I was hoping to get some other opinions about it and see if other editors feel, as I do, that Wikipedia is not the place for it to live. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The accurate info should be moved to either religion specific versions of this page ie islam and slavery or christianity and slavery, or the info should be placed into the main pages about the religions but that will take a LOT of time, energy and reverts. Other than those outcomes this must stay as it is important information on the "holiness" of the variouse religions.Hypnosadist 20:18, 30 June 2006

(UTC)

Hypnosadist, can you make your vote explicit? - Merzbow 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hopelessly POV and unencyclopedic. Tevildo /20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub. The content should be blanked and the article stubbed. I think 'religion and slavery' is a notable enough topic to deserve an encyclopedic discussion. - Merzbow 21:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was really too lazy to put any sourced content in the stub. I don't recall anything salvageable being in the original, so just nuke it. - Merzbow 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub Hypnosadist 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'keep and stub (Delete, then create a stub with current section headings). A poor quality article attracts poor quality edits. With essentially a full year of editing, some of it by solid contributors, this still hasn't gotten good. Losing the history gives us a better chance of starting afresh. GRBerry 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Essentially a giant essay (some content might go well elsewhere). SM247^{My Talk} 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub per GRBerry. Penelope D 04:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge and cut down relevant material with Slavery article. (incidentally this article is mislabelled as it only talks about Abrahamic_religions) Bwithh 04:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. Call it unsourced if necessary. Unuseful information. Probably misleading. -Ste|vertigo 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just changed my above vote, realizing it was entirely stupid. Vote: Remove from VFD and change to Split, split to relevant sections. -Ste|vertigo 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment much of these issues are dealt with in Slavery in antiquity and Christian views of slavery. I do not believe that having an article POV is grounds for deletion. Jon513 16:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I favor deletion, but nothing prevents the keep-and-stub club from doing exactly that even as the AfD is ongoing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- The new "stub" is obviously without content and should be a straightforward merge into Slavery - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it has been rewritten as a stub by Merzbow. (I expect expansion with citations.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 08:58Z
Strong Keep. I think that a well-written article on this subject is more useful for someone researching slavery than them having to run off to different religions' articles and search for where (if?) the information has been stored. The development of Slavery ...and its eventual decline (though sadly not abolition) is undeniably strongly linked with the various world religions. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dweller (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07 03:24:23 (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. – Avi 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Matheson[edit]

Failed election candidate. Not-notable. BlueValour 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn --Nick Y. 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worthy of inclusion as a major party nominee for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't win or make any notable impact other than taking part. MLA 06:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lost in 2004 and is not running again, so no longer rates an article. KleenupKrew 11:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, which I feel bad about. There's no third-party verification, nothing to establish her participation in important events. Unlike with a couple of others up for deletion right now, there's not even a major mention in her opponent's bio. Captainktainer * Talk 21:19, 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 merge and redirect. Speedy closure as it is a mis-spelled article. David | Talk 19:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Pike[edit]

Incorrect name for Magnus Pyke about whom an article already exists

Merge and Redirect Neier 17:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for redirect. Any usuable bits should be salvaged first. Artw 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: If its just confusion, then a merge and redirect should be done. Zos 19:28, 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barney McGroo[edit]

I searched for "Fox Force Five", that pilot show that Marcia Wallace outta Pulp Fiction was supposed to be in, to see if it had an entry, and stumbled upon this orphaned article. Looked dubious, so checked it out on search engines, imdb, but to no avail. Delete. --Dangherous 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not just make it a redirect to Trumpton ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. 27 Ghits, either to WP mirrors or similar sources that recite same "information" as in this article. Not listed in IMDB, specifically for GWTW. I'm guessing Angus McLellan believes McGroo is the same as the McGrew in the TV show. I think McGroo is supposed to be a real person, while McGrew is not. Tychocat 18:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't, but I was hoping to get some mileage out of this otherwise useless article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax--Nick Y. 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per Angus (along with articles for Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grubb, if they exist) Grutness...wha? 03:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:14, 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 to Sinclair Ross. Rob ert 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Sinclair Ross[edit]

Sinclair Ross, a more extensive entry on the author, already exists. I suggest that this entry be deleted in its favour. Furthermore, I suggest that the title, Sinclair Ross, be maintained as it is the name under which he published and is remembered. Victoriagirl 17:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the better known name, and mention the full name there. Fan1967 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Ardenn 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --Alex S 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Bearcat 00:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - You're all right, of course. I plead inexperience. --Victoriagirl 03:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Royalguard11^Talk 19:58, 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 DELETE. This is a tough call. Here's my reasoning: straight up on "votes", it's 7-5 delete (including nominator). But if you discount two editors who registered just for this discussion and (to their credit and honor) admitted to being SUCS members, it's 7-3. That's very close to being consensus right there, but not quite. So let's look at the other factors: (1) The article was recently nominated for AfD, and did survive, the closing admin finding no Delete consensus even after discounting puppets.(2) The argument that Alan Cox used the club's network for important Linux development counts for something. That's about it; otherwise there are no strong arguments for a Keep. That there may be articles on organizations no more notable than SUCS is not really germane; this argument is usually not strongly considered by most closers, lest Wikipedia begin a race to the bottom on notability.

On the other hand, (1) I found the previous nom to be so rife with puppets as to be essentially of little or no value a precedent (and thus this re-nomination is in order) and (2) the argument that the club fails WP:ORG is a strong one, and was not really succesfully refuted either here or in the previous AfD. The club does fail WP:ORG, I think; the only outside reference cited in the article is a Usenet post. This in my view overrides the Alan Cox connection, which does not seem to be strong enough to carry an entire article -- it could perhaps be reduced to a sentence in the Alan Cox article.

On straight-up counting, I see seven editors out of (an effective) ten suggesting Delete. And I see the stronger argument (fails WP:ORG stated and not really refuted by the Delete commentors. To me, that makes for a Delete consensus. Herostratus 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea University Computer Society[edit]

This was previously nominated, discussion is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1. However, I feel that the resulting discussion was not satisfactory, there were too many newbies voting, and the discussion was not properly closed. I'd like to do this properly this time round. The first time I wrote "only have 180 members, making it non-notable. Plus, its in Swansea, which is never a good place to be!" as a reason to AFD it. Which was admittedly a little naïve. Now, I curtail that somewhat, my reasoning being "only have 180 members, making it non-notable". I call for a recognised responsable administator to close the debate. OK, so Deathphoenix, who closed the last discussion, fits the bill. But that may've been a mistake. --Dangherous 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Fails WP:ORG. Tychocat 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Fails WP:ORG.--Nick Y. 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student societies do not belong here, get your own page. SM247^{My Talk} 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Swansea University. It is a club. A rather established one, but nonetheless. Its computers were used by someone notable. Now if they'd put an auto on top of a building we'd have to keep it... (cough!) Shenme 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are one of the (if not the) bigest computer societies in the UK, the society (or rather its members) have had a significant involvement with the development of linux in the early days and continue to contribute to many OpenSource projects, but you already know that having read the article... all the arguments have already been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1 It seems to me this discussion has been reopened purely because it didn't go the way Dangherous wanted the first time... rollercow (SUCS Admin) 81.96.205.21 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Student societies do belong here - there is even a category for them. Other universities actually have their own society list pages in Wikipedia and yet I don't see any of them up for deletion. This deletion nomination is being driven by the same user as last time. He has brought no new arguments forward and the current number of members has nothing to do with notability. (SUCS member) --Deniswalker 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. This nomination has not followed the proper procedure for second-time nominations - this page should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society (2nd nomination), instead of overwriting the old debate, which I note is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society1. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations. Hairy Dude 13:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I see it's already been moved somewhere saner. In that case Speedy Keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations. The article has already survived AfD once and no new arguments have been presented. Hairy Dude 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the other articles in Category:British student societies this is just as notable as most of them in there. Wikipedia is not paper and there is no need to set the notability bar too high. Last time I said "Keep Due to their contribution to Linux" and I see no reason to change my mind. --RicDod 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having just had a quick look, I suspect somebody can go through that cat and scythe a fair few of them down for painful want of notability. SM247^{My Talk} 06:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. The existence of a cat does not make a class of articles encylopedic. Vegaswikian 00:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The society certainly is notable and student societies do belong in Wikipedia - why else would there be a category for them? I agree with RicDod that Wikipedia can contain much more information than a paper encyclopedia, so the notability bar should not be too high - why remove information that some people will find useful? FireFury
It's a really nicely written article, quite informative, fairly written, which is why it pains me to say delete because the subject is fundamentally non-notable. David | Talk 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Book of Jasher[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or Meatpuppetry.

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

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

Still more content forking by User:TheEditrix. The Book of Jasher, also Sefer haYashar and sometimes translated as Book of the Upright is what appears to be a volume of poetry and is mentioned twice in the Old Testament. We have an entry on that book already at ~~Sefer haYashar (midrash)~~ Sefer haYashar (Biblical references). Calling it Lost Book would be misleading and original research, so delete. Dr Zak 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 20:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 20:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefer haYashar (Biblical references) or Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher). If it isn't redirected somewhere, we just go through this again in six months. BigDT 22:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sigh. As with the rest of original proposer's rash of AfD proposals directed at every article I write, this article is neither original research nor misleading. Assertions above DO constitute original research; this article does NOT. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to Keep: Please note that this article has been in existence for only a couple of days. It's still undergoing editing and linking, and I'm still adding links to source information, of which there is MUCH. At WORST it's a stub. Not a delete. This AfD is VASTLY premature, as is original proposer's sudden interest in AfDing and Merge-deleting every article I've written in the past week. WAY premature. And way out of line. I could point to 2000 WP articles with less data, and less research. Premature deletion of articles written in good faith is stupendously discouraging, and it's a good way to chase serious, thoughtful, good-faith editors out of the community. --The Editrix 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem is that this article is a fork. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. There are already articles on this subject - there is no reason for a separate article. You are welcome to edit Sefer haYashar (Biblical references), Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher), or any other article on the subject. Creating another one just means that there is one more thing to maintain. BigDT 01:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note talk page spamming [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] Dr Zak 04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia is not a Paper encyclopedia This article is not even a week old, and has promise. Also, I have reason to believe User:Dr. Zak is targeting the author of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) Delete Unorginized, hard to read, and confusing.False Prophet 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this article at least until it is finished. shijeru 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do not remove AfD prompt until its status has been decided! Em-jay-es 01:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the accepted rules of Hebrew transliteration, the pronunciation of this term should be sefer hayyashar. The first word is the common noun in Hebrew for “book”, while the second term (which is probably a verbal-adjective for “be straight / righteous”) is pronounced with an a-a vowel-pattern. Indeed, an article for the Sefer haYashar exists in Wikipedia, making EX’s creation of the Lost Book of Yasher redundant. The title that TheEditrix chooses, jasher, is the transliteration found in the King James Version, while the New Revised Standard Version has the correct form Yashar. However, several issues are raised by Yasher and TheEditrix seems unaware of them.

1. In some Greek translations (the Septuagint) we have the term translated “book of Songs,” which has led many biblical scholars to suspect that this “book,” in fact, represented an oral repertoire of songs. This idea is supported by the fact that the occurrences of sefer hayyashar appear in very archaic Hebrew (typically songs and poems preserved through oral tradition). Refer the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pages 646-647.

2. If this second lexical item is indeed pronounced jasher, as TheEditrix insists, then it is quite possibly yashir, the 3rd person masculine singular form of the verb shar, meaning “he sings / he will sing” (it may even have been the archaic prefix-preterite form = “he sang”). See also the other interesting translations found in the Aramaic (and Syriac) versions, discussed in Sefer haYashar. Over time, this meaning was probably “lost” (to use TheEditrix’s favorite word).

In other words, the Lost Book of Jasher, discussed by TheEditrix, exists primarily in the English of the KJV. There probably never was a “lost book” of such name, and the only thing lost would have been a long tradition of songs that were sung in the Temple of Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by the Babylonians. There is no reason for keeping this article, and I would suggest not merging it either. As it stands, it is a fork and it fails A. OR and B. WP:NPOV. Em-jay-es 06:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until it is finished. It needs to be improved, not deleted. --Guinnog 14:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping in mind the comments above, how would you go about improving this article? Dr Zak 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note on Joshua 10.13 on p. 330 of the Oxford Annotated 3rd Edition of NRSV translation states, "The Book of Jashar, no longer extant, appears to have been a collection of poetry that extolled Israel's military victories and heroes (see 2 Sam 1.18). . . . ". Note on p. 351 of The Bible Knowledge Commentary edited by Walvoord and Zuck says, "(The Book of Jashar is a Heb. literary collection of songs written in poetic style to honor the accomplishments of Israel's leaders. cf. David's "lament of the bow" in 2 Sam 1:17-27)."--P Todd 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment Note additional citations added 6 July 2006. Concerns noted above are obviated. --The Editrix 19:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comment - Please consider the types of sources added to the article. Smith's Bible Dictionary was originally published in the 1800’s and the second internet source is not appropriate for a credible encyclopedia entry. (Where does the pronunciation Jashur come from?) These sources only intensify my concerns.

This article seems to be motivated by a POV that interprets these ancient sources as lost books that (as “books”) are comparable with the books of the Bible. However, what does the common noun sepher mean in ancient Hebrew? A quick reference to Kohler-Baumgartner’s Lexicon will reveal that it has a wide semantic-range, all indicating a locus of writing. In other words, it can mean “letter,” “inscription,” or “scroll.” It could be written on parchment, papyrus, or potsherd (letters or receipts), or it could be inscribed in stone or metal (inscriptions) and even engraved in plaster. If one follows the prevalent scholarly interpretation of these sources (such as the book of Jashar) as records from either the Temple or palace archives of Jerusalem, how are does one interpret sepher? If these were records from archives of lost institutions, can we call them books in the classic sense of the term? This basic problem raises a whole series of questions:

What were they written upon – scrolls, inscribed stele or plastered walls (see Deir Alla)?
Did the ancient communities consider these sources “scripture” – as compared with, say, the Torah? :
Were they written before the concepts of “scripture” and “canon” were operative in the various faith-groups?

All that to say this: this article (as well as the other “lost book” articles) operates according to a single POV that interprets them as books, in the modern sense of the term, and suggests that they were part of a once larger canon of scripture. Em-jay-es 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified Original research. I agree completely with Em-jay-es who has summed up the issues surrounding this article and the sources provided quite nicely.--Isotope23 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of relationships with age disparity[edit]

Nominating again - First discussion was spammed by Inclusionist Wikipedians group. I want to hear REAL reasons and arguments for keeping this. I'm sick of excuses. There is no cutoff for notability or way this list can be completed. For God's sake, Wikipedia isn't the Entertainment Network, and it isn't a collection of lists! Kookykman|(t)e 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity

Comment: I haven't actually decided if this article merits deletion, but upon reading it, it looks more like celebrity gossip than a list with relevant, encyclopedic content. I would think that the relevant information about those people's relationships would belong in the individual biography articles, not in a list. --Elkman 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supermarket tabloid stuff. Golfcam 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again per nom. This list is strictly POV, since as noted before, anyone who's ever been married is with someone older or younger (by one second or 30 years). If maintained strictly, therefore, it's a list of anyone who's been married (or perhaps just dated, since the article refers to "relationships"). If it's not maintained strictly, it immediately becomes arbitrary POV as to what's older or younger. No indication this topic has any encyclopedic interest, just voyeurism. Tychocat 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Indrian's nomination in the first AfD. GassyGuy 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 19:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't particularly care for the reasons given for renomination, but really, disparity is "The condition or fact of being unequal" [112] and virtually every relationship would meet that description, unless you can find a couple born at the same second on the same day (truly meant for each other). Indiscriminate info. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current criteria seem to be a difference of 5 years. That's not notable. Think about it, when someone 37 dates someone 32, is your first thought really "Wow, that should be in an encyclopedia"? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is informative and interesting enough to merit an article.--Josh 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting or not, Wikipedia's not a collection of various sundry lists. Novelty, perhaps, but not worthy of inclusion here. Wildthing61476 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any list that would include me (my wife is six years younger) is too trivial to keep. Fan1967 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary and indiscriminate per WP:NOT; there are and have been many cultures where a sizable age difference between marriage partners would be expected, and its absence would be noteworthy. Informative and interesting are not reasons to keep an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - otherwise can I do a list of people about the height different between people? --Charlesknight 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and informative list --rogerd 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of celebrity trivia without clear inclusion criteria. Dr Zak 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasons given above. Agent 86 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not People magazine. Danny Lilithborne 01:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I originally voted for keep, I do not believe this can be saved in light of reading it again and the fact that no effort has been made to make it encyclopaedic. It is gossip in its present form and it will not change. SM247^{My Talk} 01:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No doubt interesting to the people that made it, but this is the wrong site to post it to. Osomec 03:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per indiscriminate collection of information. What a boring list. MLA 06:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an impossible list--I don't see how it could possible be complete nor do I see how it could have a NPOV. Theshibboleth 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All relationships have an age disparity. -- GWO
Comment: The observations that there's always an a disparity of age may only support that the article should be renamed "List of relationships with UNUSUALLY GREAT age disparity" (which may or may not be suitable for inclusion). Being unusual to the point of remarkable might make a subject worthy of inclusion; support from eg the list of giants at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism#List_of_.22giants.22 ? although obviously the arbitrary nature of determining a cut-off point is problematic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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! 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rosenthal[edit]

Vanity biography of nn student activist, unreferenced, original research. VivianDarkbloom 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:BIO, I also get only four Ghits for "Daniel Rosenthal" and "IWVO". Mind you, I do not believe Google is the final arbiter of notability, but I do think this is indicative. Tychocat 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails Google test and WP:BIO. -- Alias Flood 19:10, 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Purcell[edit]

Biography that does not meet notability standards. Apparently article has been nominated for deletion twice before, but the tags were removed quickly after placement. I can find no evidence of notability, even the referenced works do not cite Purcell as the author. SteveHopson 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Frankly, looks like a hoax - check of Amazon shows only one possible match from a book published in 1978; external links don't mention him, and I tracked down the Sellwood Moreland Improvement League. The league website doesn't mention him either. I found a couple of hits in photo shows, but nothing to show he's notable in that field either. Tychocat 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Nick Y. 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amazon shows one 1978 book by a Frank Purcell, but I don't think it is this Frank Purcell. Doesn't appear notable. KleenupKrew 11:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the information is not strongly verifiable and is not relevant to other topics covered on Wikipedia. Captainktainer * Talk 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, I started this article (okay, looking at the history, I guess I didn't start it, but) it's not a hoax. I can dig up my references if need be. I started it because someone had written are article in which they had put [[Frank Purcell]]. He's local to me, so I started the stub. If he's not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, then fine. --KSnortum 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In http://ncbible.org/nwh/orhistdc.html -- "Our special thanks to Eileen Fitzsimons and Frank Purcell for research assistance on this entry."
- In http://www.history.pdx.edu/oaks/thanks.htm -- "Frank Purcell, Historian at the Sellwood-Moreland Improvement League, offered me a goldmine of photographs from Sellwood's neighborhood association."
- "...special thanks to Bob Schmidt for his excellent service as President, and to Frank Purcell and Brett Baylor for diligent service as Board members, in the past two years. Purcell will continue to serve as a SMILE committee-member." http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/portland/smile/history.html

Okay, maybe he isn't that notable. Do whatever you feel is best. --KSnortum 22:27, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolec[edit]

Advertising for nonnotable product NawlinWiki 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Tychocat 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert for a non-notable product made by a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 19:48, 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. TheProject 19:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scylla and charybdis (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page is now redundant, inasmuch as it refers only to one article. The page was created by the author of an article about a nonnotable rock band which has since been deleted. Deletion of this disambiguation page is simply cleanup. Charles 18:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G6 - Housekeeping. (one of the criteria is: "removing a disambig page that only points to a single article.") I've tagged the article. Fan1967 19:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks, I missed that speedy category---it would've saved me a lot of typing! ---Charles 19:10, 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. Rob ert 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Cave Offensive Treasures[edit]

Gamecruft. It's not notable. Kirby Super Star is somewhat important. A list of every item you can get in a minigame in Kirby Super Star isn't. Ace of Sevens 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. OMEN 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tychocat 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to be list or gamecruft. Zos 19:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Artw 19:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a good game, but this article is woefully worthless. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I started this article long ago thinking it might provide an outlet for the endless cruft that often finds its way into the main Kirby DX article (it was also the most fun reseach I've ever had to do). In hindsight, I realize pages shouldn't be created for that purpose. Kil^(talk) 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator voted to delete, so I've tagged it per CSD-G7. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 01:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And I have removed this tag. CSD:G7 only applies to articles created by mistake and where there have been no other substantial contributions. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedia[edit]

Neologism - googling shows no fixed meaning Artw 19:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be coined in a real book but has not taken off. Non-notable neologism.--Nick Y. 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article admits it's a "buzzword", and given the definition it can't really be used as anything else. Opabinia regalis 03:20, 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Possible: Remixed[edit]

Self-promotion of webcomic of questionable notability (per most webcomics submitted to Wikipedia) Matticus78 19:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nomination. OMEN 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copied to Comixpedia: Kim Possible: Remixed. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Webcomic has been around a period of time and is well ranked in a number of webcomic listings User:drmike
Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. Most Ghits are blogs frequented by User:drmike. If you've got those rankings somewhere, write them in. Tychocat 20:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No claim of any sort of importance, does not appear to have achieved sufficient external notice to ensure that it can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. User:drmike, you may want to read over WP:VANITY and Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Dragonfiend 21:20, 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudofreeway[edit]

This article seems to be some what notable, however, I find that this information should be merged to the main article (i.e. freeway) as it does not seem to stand alone very well, and could be mentioned in a generally larger article.OMEN 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, if the article is to stand alone, I think a general picture or cleanup is necessary (not to insult the author, but the article topic is very difficult to grasp). OMEN 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a known technical term? If so, it should be verifiable through cited sources. But at first glance (including some quick Google searching) I'm concerned that this is original research. Glad to see new editors taking a swing at things, though. --William Pietri 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. I get exactly one Ghit and it's entirely unrelated to this article. If the author's got any references or citations, you should have included them in the article already. Tychocat 20:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --Nick Y. 20:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism and original research. SM247^{My Talk} 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to freeway. Looks like Nintendude has a new name - Paul from Michigan. --SPUI (T - C) 10:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the initiator of this article, so I will not vote on deletion. The term is a neologism -- but one that should be comprehensible. We all know what pseudo means as a prefix, and we all know what a freeway is. If it is a neologism, it isn't that much of one. If someone has a better term, the feel free to re-name the article pending any effort to delete it.

The concept seems valid enough; any highway that despite having perils that cause it to fall far short of the normal expectations of a freeway although deceiving motorists into driving at freeway speeds. The pseudofreeway, as I see it, is a highway different from the "Blood Alley" infamous from the early days of motoring: the twisting mountain road or a mountain road with steep grades that push braking capacity -- especially that of trucks -- past their limits, the three-lane highway with the middle 'suicide lane', the rural highway with 90-degree turns and narrow bridges and no shoulder.

Does it need some re-writing? Of course. Most new articles need significant re-writing to raise them to the quality appropriate for well-established articles.

So go ahead and reorganize the article as you see fit. --Paul from Michigan 17:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not in fact Nintendude (assuming good faith and all...), please read Wikipedia:No original research. --SPUI (T - C) 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more explicit, "pseudofreeway" is something an encyclopedia would cover once it has been researched and described by experts in the field. So if transportation researchers use it as a term of art, or you have DOT documents talking about pseudofreeways, then we could cover it on Wikipedia. But if the concept is yours personally or limited to a relatively small number of people then the material should find a home elsewhere on the web. --William Pietri 01:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --William Pietri 01:13, 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/redirect. Joyous! | Talk 16:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred becky[edit]

Redundant article - the man already has an article at Fred Beckey (I checked the spelling is indeed "Beckey" - his books are listed on Amazon). Doesn't seem to be any information in here that isn't already covered in the existing article, but salvage anything worthwhile then suggest redirect (there are plenty of Google hits for his name when mis-spelt!) ~ Matticus78 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect per nom. --ColourBurst 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect KleenupKrew 11:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect Arguably North America's most storied mountaineer, with an easily mis-spelled name. as per nom. Pete.Hurd 17:42, 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 keep. Rob ert 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Il Globo[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, prod removed Tychocat 19:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Old ethnic newspaper. Part of our Australian coverage. I don't see how Wp:Corp applies, nor do I think the comment about the prod is in any way relevant. --JJay 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's good to know that somebody tried prod before coming here. That it was removed without the recommended comment, discussion, or improvement is also useful information to me in evaluating the situation. --William Pietri 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you would be wrong then. [113] --JJay 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're correct. Sorry, I must have looked at the wrong diff. Next time I'd suggest a more explicit edit comment, though. --William Pietri 14:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, no problem. Thanks for changing your vote. --JJay 18:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability appears. --William Pietri 21:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep per Capitalist Roadster. --William Pietri 14:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a sourced statement of circulation over 20,000 passes my bar of notability, articles like these are important to combat systemic bias in our coverage. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a non-english paper in a primarily english speaking country that has been going for over 45 years and has a circulation that large is most definately notable, and deserves expansion. Viridae ^Talk 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable ethnic newspaper in Australia. Nino Randazzo, its cofounder and editor for almost all of the 45 year, is now a member of the Italian Senate having been elected to one of the seats set aside for expatriate Italians. My understanding is that it has a fairly large circulation, especially for an ethnic newspaper. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. JPD (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Somebody might consider creating a page for La Fiamma as well. SM247^{My Talk} 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. An56 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Inner Earth 09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalroadster. --Canley 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Longhair 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has large circulation —Pengo 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nobable part of Australian history and multi culturalism. Besides the editor has recently been elected to the Italian senate. --Michael Johnson 11:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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! 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge 101[edit]

Non notable young Internet radio: 28 distinct Google hits, most not for the station Fram 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. WP is also not a Web directory, and the article looks like an ad. Tychocat 20:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I expect every other "station" and media outlet listed in Wikipeida to be flagged for deletion as well. Apparently you didn't seach Google correctly. An ad? Give me a break. It follows the same format most every other station on Wikipedia has. The station doesn't even have advertising to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teampozer (talk • contribs)

Comment: if you feel someone has made an error (like, searched Google incorrectly), then please indicate what they have done wrong and what the correct result would be. Anyway, today I received 35 instead of 28 distinct Google hits, and most of them are still not for the subject of the article. Fram 12:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can find no evidence that this Internet radio station satisfies WP:WEB criteria. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Montgomery[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CSD A7. Google search for "Blake Montgomery" tuns up 1,860 hits, quite a few of which have nothing to do with this person (e.g. results like Sean Blake Mongomery). Other Google searches with things this guy is supposed to be involved in turn up very few, or few relevant hits. I originally PRODded this, but someone removed the tag, saying, "Deprod author of "Clown Noir: If the Gumshoe Fits" and "Hamlet"". Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare, and "Clown Noir If the Gumshoe Fits" turns up only two Google hits. Green451 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One article [114] about the guy is all I can find. The original text is a pretty clear copyvio [115]. That the original creator of the article has made exactly one edit is a common vanity pattern. I say nix it until he's more clearly notable. William Pietri 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per possible WP:VAIN, plus WP:NN and WP:V. Zos 20:53, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 16:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter[edit]

this page does not fit within the standard Wikipedia guidelines. It may be better served as a small mention in a larger article on Austrailian rescue services. Caspiankilkelly 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kingsford Smith International Airport. There's already a section header there for it. :) Tevildo 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Australian rescue helicopter service. An Australia - New Zealand database gets 354 hits for it. There are a couple of Google News references for it see [116].

and this is not the peak season for it. During the Australian summer, you would get more stories written about it. Needs to be wikified and otherwise cleaned up a bit but notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no question in Australian terms about its individual notability. Which guidelines is it going against by the way? The nominator should be more specific about their claims and possibly investigate the local (ie, the whole of australia) notability of the subject first. Would it be better to note about some of the thousands of rescues that it has been involved in? Ansell 23:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable. SM247^{My Talk} 02:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable service. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and move to Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Services. The article doesn't (and shouldn't) be focused on the helicopters, but the service —Pengo 06:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw one of the helicopters on TV last night and thought to check if there was a Wikipedia article about the service. Was surprised to see it was up for deletion. Definitely notable to Australians. --Canley 09:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The helicopter service has been around for over 30years and has saved over 20,000 lives!!! I support the move to about the service not entirely the helicopters. --Feelinsoryan 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Grey Shadow 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, this is very borderline, but please note that the previous AfD had an overwhelming consensus to keep this article. I have to admit that the previous AfD was a factor in this decision, but even without that previous AfD, the consensus to delete is not high enough to warrant deleting this article. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns[edit]

I don't think local radio station year-end countdowns are notable enough to deserve articles, especially not notable enough to deserve an article for every year from 1980 to 2005. This main article and the 26 sub-articles should all be deleted. KROQ may be a popular station in L.A., but that doesn't mean all of its year end countdowns are notable. These countdowns were copied and pasted from this page of KROQ's official site. A link to the countdowns can be added to the main KROQ-FM article. Also, others may use these articles as a reason to create similar articles for their local radio stations. Musicpvm 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another list that exists just to be a list, with no claims to notability? Tychocat 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important station, good information. This was a near unanimous Keep the last time it was nominated. --JJay 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ColourBurst 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. One radio station's best-of lists are not notable. BoojiBoy 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is KROQ a notable station? Absolutely. Are these interesting? To me, yes. Likely to others too. Are local radio station countdowns encyclopaedic, and are these being used to support anything? Nope and nope, so delete them and provide a link to the countdowns in the KROQ article. GassyGuy 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listcruft. SM247^{My Talk} 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons stated the LAST time this was put up for deletion!!! Parsssseltongue 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments a) it's a very old AfD (indeed a VfD); b) subsequent AfDs are not bound by it; and c) I do not find most of those reasons convincing -would you care to elaborate on which ones in particular strike you as applying here? SM247^{My Talk} 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, if we don't have to enter a debate on it, since you've already stated you disagree. But I am of the opinion that it is a notable feature on a notable radio station. Parsssseltongue 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment OK. Each to his own I suppose. SM247^{My Talk} 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Joyous! | Talk 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily harvard[edit]

Lacks verifiability and notability (see Google search). Possible vanity. Asserts claims of significance, so not eligible for speedy deletion. —Caesura ^(t) 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims to be 4th-ranked junior female tennis player in England; that's not enough for notability. NawlinWiki 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, possibly total hoax. Neither she nor either of her named opponents appear in the actual rankings. Fan1967 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author of the article, User:Alastair bayliss, also has has the article's text on his user page. Fan1967 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the main reason I suspected possible vanity. But the complete lack of Google results for Harvard or any of the other alleged tennis players named in the article lead me to suspect that you may be right about it being a hoax. —Caesura ^(t) 01:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 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 Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm going to be bold and move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/List of cricketers. Any editor can move this anywhere else. In the interest of keeping cross-namespace redirects to a minimum, I will also delete the resulting redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers[edit]

This article is just a collection of Wikilinks, conveys no information, and definitely unencyclopedic. See the relevant policy for details. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplicates Category:Cricket lists. Tevildo 20:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, hopelessy large and category already exists to deal with it, not likely to assist navigation much. SM247^{My Talk} 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant with category. MLA 06:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss further This list is indeed a pain in the proverbial but it is currently being considered by WikiProject Cricket and we had moreorless resolved to keep it and another horrible compendium called List of cricket topics in our WP:CRIC area in case it should ever be of use and someone might want to develop it usefully. I suppose I'm effectively supporting your arguments here but the discussion is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Huge_lists_for_deletion.3F Could you please allow members of the cricket project to consider this before deleting? --Jack 06:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Discussions can also be done here. The AfD debate will remain open at least 5 more days. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending resolution of debate among the community for whom this list and others like it may have some purpose. As per Jack. Johnlp 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket (as suggested by Stephen Turner). I believe that the lists main purpose was to provide a tool for viewing Recent changes to the 4500 or so cricketer articles. It needs to be kept but not in the main article space. -- I@n ≡ talk 08:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Ian. It is unnecessary to proceed with the AfD because it has already been discussed at length in WP:Cric and a decision was taken to move it. It is an automatically generated list and is needed to keep track of the changes and new cricketer articles. Tintin (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Move How does this not fit the List guide exclusion in the referenced guideline. Ansell 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't satisfy the "Information" criteria. A list should contain some coherent information. For example, a list form of this article would contain career statistics of the player. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per I@n. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 11:19, 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! 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BudDry Movement in Country Music[edit]

Probable hoax; no sources given for this "movement" and zero Ghits NawlinWiki 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if not a hoax, fails WP:NEO. Tevildo 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried a google search for BudDry +country, everything in the first few pages was use of Buddry as a last name, or miscellenous misspellings, etc. Definitely not a widely-used term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:06, 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. Rob ert 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elis Alia[edit]

Drinking "a normal sized glass of water in 1.8 seconds" is a world record? Yeah, right. Unsourced hoax. NawlinWiki 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~Guinness stopped recording this sort of feat in 1991.~~ Sorry, just for alcohol. Still doesn't affect this article. Tevildo 21:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No. Just No. - Richfife 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition I found a glass of water of the correct size, filled it up and had somebody time me as I drank it. Just under 2 seconds. I'm a world record holder! For my next trick, I'm going to get a life - Richfife 17:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This looks like complete nonsense. Guinness does NOT have a record category for drinking a "normal-sized" glass of water. Add to that the comment about the Primary school and you have a world record in nonsense (Well, no but you get the point) Wildthing61476 21:20, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Computing, Inc.[edit]

Seems to be a straight advertisement from a non-notable company. My vote would be Delete Dipics 21:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM, no assertion that the company passes WP:CORP. Interesting that they list Red Bull as one of their product lines, but merely interesting, not notable. Tevildo 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Question: If the page were to be edited to reflect what they've done for the state of Vermont as opposed to a list of "What They Do", would it be more acceptable? kvidell 21:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to improve the article you'll have to write only things verifiable through citations of reliable sources and avoid original research. See WP:CORP for guidelines on what sorts of companies generally get kept. Sorry if this seems a little brusque, but you wouldn't believe how many corporate vanity articles we see every day. --William Pietri 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --William Pietri 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Given the size of Vermont and the nature of its small towns, there is a lot of respect for organizations that are founded here and manage to do well. It's not usual for a technology company so small out of Vermont to have such a personal impact on the area and its clients. The article can be cleaned up, there is no question about that. Arthemys 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although the AfD process isn't a vote, as such, it'll be helpful if people who want the article to be kept put Keep rather than Oppose in their posts. Avoids ambiguity, and that. Tevildo 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing at all notable about this company. It appears to be a typical strip-mall store and just doesn't seem notable to me. Also, the original article was written by one of the store managers which strikes me as, at best, self-serving. Vermont companies can do well on a nationwide level. If you don't believe me, ask Ben and Jerry. Beaner1 22:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that this process appears to me as a matter of opinion now, versus actually going by rules and regulations. (See previous comment regarding "strip-mall") In my current position, I am not a store manager. My reason for creating the article was out of informational purposes, not advertisement. Time and energy for advertising is best spent elsewhere. Why post an advert somewhere where you don't expect revenue to be generated? Arthemys 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are not really that many "rules and regulations" here, as it turns out. The guidelines that are recognized at the moment are listed at WP:CORP. Can you help us understand how your business meets these guidelines? You may want to also read WP:VANITY, which talks about the problems which typically arise when an editor has a conflict of interest in the topic he is covering. Kuru ^talk 23:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator of it works there. Skinnyweed 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, Arthemys, the author of the article, claimed above that he isn't a store manager. Yet, his user page reads "Vermont Computing, Inc., Randolph, Vermont (July 2004 – Present) Store Manager & Infrastructure Architect". I admit to being confused. As to why try to advertise here. It is already your second google hit. That's never a bad thing. And, as all businesspeople know, free advertising is the best advertising. Beaner1 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know -why- he says he's a manager in his wikipage, but from knowing him and knowing the company (I worked for it a year ago), he is not, and never was a manager.

Instead of attacking them, which I know you're not trying to do, but you're succeeding none the less, how about suggestions in the Discussion page on how to make the page better? If it helps I'll do it myself since I'm not a current employee and haven't been for some time. If you were from the parts of Vermont they service, you'd look at this "discussion" you all are holding with disdain.

I realize it needs to not violate the Corporate page, and that it currently is. If I were to go through and make it less... er... violatey (It's a word, I swear), can the AfD be reversed easily since it's not a vote?

I think they deserve a page and anything I can do to make sure they have one I'd like to attempt with the communities approval. They aren't quite "mom n' pop" as the next comment down says, far from it. Computer sales and repair are only what they do because they happen to have a retail store front, there's also a large consulting back end.

I also have a question. That is: Since you all want things to be cited and what-not, what can we do? I remember there being certificates of incorporation and community appreciation, but those are paper documents. Scanning them would violate the "personal research" clause. What then? Is Wikipedia really so locked-down by their own silly policies that you aren't "good enough" if you don't have web-news coverage to prove it? God forbid the state of Vermont appreciate something without forcing the whole world to know.

-kvidell 03:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we want 4 million articles on mom & pop computer shops. It's good that they sell Red Bull, though. NawlinWiki 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One Last Comment I think that what it boils down to in my opinion is that local notability does not equal notability on a wikipedia level. WP:CORP is really the best guideline available. It's nothing personal. It says much good about a company to have two (one current and one former) employee trying to get it placed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it also says something about it's notability that you two are the only ones that are voting to keep it here. I wish both of you and the company the best. It may seem that we are being unhelpful. But we, at least I, have no good advice on how to turn a non-notable company into a notable one. It is not so much that the article is written like an advertisement (which it is) as it is that the company just doesn't seem to be notable. Unless there is some evidence of notability that hasn't been presented yet, my vote would still stand.Beaner1 04:34, 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairwaylife[edit]

Prod removed. This article reads like an advert and no claims to meet WP:WEB are presented. 33 Ghits for "Fairwaylife" doesn't help. Last paragraph is an ad for Quickform, an article I've prodded for similar reasons. Scientizzle 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Delete per nom. Tevildo 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still fails WP:CORP. Tevildo 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've fixed it up so it doesn't read like an advert. I don't feel notablity is a problem. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your cleanup really helped the POV problems, but will you elaborate on why you don't "feel notablity is a problem"? Thanks, Scientizzle 22:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

[117] [118] [119] There's three mentions. I've changed my vote to weak keep, but I still think it is notable enough, if barely. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for providing those links. I disagree that they apply, though--#1 & #2 are basically yellowpage listings, not really meeting the "subject of [a]...non-trivial work" clause. I'm not sure about #3 because I can't translate it to find out what it actually says...it might work, but I just plain can't tell. -- Scientizzle 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with all due respect Wikibout, the WP:CORP and WP:WEB guidelines for notability discard things like the links you have provided as they cannot be seen as independent. Pascal.Tesson 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misses WP:WEB by a fairway (sorry). And "www.fairwaylife.com" only gets 4 ghits, one being thte site itself. Inner Earth 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two first links posted are indeed "yellowpage" listings. There are more pages linking to fairwaylife though that are not indexes and not an act of the owners, but they are just links in a list of other noteable sites so maybe they don't count. The third link is very interesting. Its from the Swedish Golf Federations Official website saying "New Golf Portal, some history, talks about current features, the ambitions of the site." The topic of the article is "all about costa del sol" and the golf portal fairwaylife is aparently the only site found worthy of mentioning for that headline. --Widjet 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I submit paperback articles? --Widjet 18:03, 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 keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig B. Hulet, 2nd nomination[edit]

Comment: There was a previous AfD on this article. Some editors have been trying to improve the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Hulet for previous AfD. --TruthbringerToronto 21:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not know the content of the original article so I can not comment on that. The main reason I think this person is notable is that there are disputes to his claims and makes me wonder if he is a charlatan. Also, I do not know if two responses represents a strong consensus from the first afd. I have noticed some anon edits that seem to cut and paste from his website and that could be a recurring issue. There also seem to be less notable people who have their own article. Anyway, if this article is deleted, I will not try to recreate it. MrMurph101 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article, deleted because of the results of the first AFD. Should have been taken to Deletion Review, not re-created and put up for a second AFD. Also my view hasn't changed, he is a minor, occasional radio talk show guest at best who has self-published a few books and a bunch of "white papers" and is not notable enough for an article. Somebody keeps copying and pasting blatantly POV promo material to the article and the only other people who seem to be interesed in him are a few critics putting their own POV in. The article has always been a mess of pro- and anti- POV both of which inflate his importance, and is unlikely to ever be anything more. He's just not notable. KleenupKrew 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to clarify something. I am not a critic of this person. If my edits are POV I will try to adjust them unless someone already has. I just find it fascinating how he is popular with progressives while accused of being right wing. If his claims are accurate, then he is a notable person. If he is a fraud, that in itself seems notable too. As long as there are verifiable facts, whether on the web or through a lexis/nexis search, we can find the truth and have a good, accurate article. MrMurph101 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article mostly meets WP:V, and he has apparently been a fixture of West Coast politics. By WP:BIO, he meets the guidelines for inclusion fairly well. Editors have done a very good job of 1) citing sources, 2) demonstrating relevance, and 3) demonstrating notability. They've done somewhat worse on 4) wikifying, but otherwise it's a pretty good article.Captainktainer * Talk 21:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said, it's a pretty good article. --TruthbringerToronto 04:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in some circles, and the article explores the controvery surrounding his celebrity in a relatively NPOV way. Useful. Just because his fans keep inserting POV material is no reason to delete.--Cberlet 13:42, 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.

Note: Subsequent to this AFD, I have deleted the page pursuant to WP:LIVING and due to the fact that it was a re-creation of previously deleted content (page content was nearly identical to the older content previously deleted) that had not been subject to a successful deletion review. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, because it fails WP:CORP. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickform[edit]

Prod removed. This article reads like an advert. May be notable, but no claims to meet WP:WEB or WP:CORP are presented. 0 Ghits for Quickform "Fredrik Delin" "Marcus Bergström" and 175 for Quickform Marbella. Scientizzle 21:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Tevildo 22:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made it read less like an advert. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Fails WP:CORP spectacuarly. Viridae ^Talk 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAfter the edits it does not look like an advert. This is information about a company that meet the criterion of having a page in the wiki. How do you include references to mentionings and articles without posting it on the actual page? --Widjet 23:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please take a look at WP:CORP and tell me how exactly it passes those criteria? Viridae ^Talk 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the deletion of the most shameless part of the advertisement, it still is an utterly un-notable company as WP:CORP easily demonstrates. Pascal.Tesson 04:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons as above (though fairly obvious on reading article and WP:CORP...) Inner Earth 22:09, 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 as, if not quite patent nonsense, a CSD G2/G3 obvious joke page. Xoloz 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only Fourteen Worlds Theory[edit]

Speedied as nonsence, tag removed. So here it is. DarkAudit 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Some anonymous user went in and deleted the above nominating statement. It's put back. Speedy and block. --DarkAudit 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" and it might need some protection as someone is intent on removing/altering the notice. --Charlesknight 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest of speedy deletes with added fire. Utter bilge; someone trying desperately to get into WP:BJAODN. ~ Matticus78 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1 per nom. Might scrape a G3 if the author is being obstreperous. Tevildo 22:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes keeps removing notice - anyway to make it "sticky"? --Charlesknight 22:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not intended as a joke. Superbo 22:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The way I see it, Matticus78 just threatened to set Wikipedia on fire.

Keep - The article sheds some much needed insight into the ambiguity of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and I feel personally can offer a great deal to the current state of quantum physics...

Keep - it may appear that I am the same person, but I'm actually from a different world than the previous person... so I'm gonna go ahead and vote Keep on my 5:4 screen.

Delete as delusional bollocks. GassyGuy 22:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bollocks as... wait what?
  - What...?
- "I'm basically here for the entertainment value"
  - 10 points to whoever can place that oh so famous quote
I recommed delete. That's just silly. - and MoonlitDorian said this, but was too stupid to log in first.
- You must ascend into the 15th world, sir.

Keep - Their minds could not handle it, and during their spells in mental health institutions trying to get their shattered worldviews back to how they were before the revelation they were visited by Them and hired as anti-evangelists in an attempt to suppress the truth.

Speedy delete as obvious nonsense and will keep tagging as such until an admin notices it. NawlinWiki 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on just one minute... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.98.222 (talk • contribs) NawlinWiki 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: After posting the above hangon request, User:68.81.98.222 proceeded to remove the speedy and AFD tags (again). NawlinWiki 22:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not. I just added a chess game, since everyone was hanging out on the page with nothing to do. I figured we might as well play some chess and battle it out like real men.
      - My rook just took your queen, NawlinsWiki.
        wait, are you white or black? let's start over.

"In particular, if someone says that they think they can rework the "nonsense" into something worthwhile, then please give them some time and space to do so."

Cryptofascists...
Speedy delete as complete nonsense. Alphachimp ^talk 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, patently a joke or hoax. No references provided, does not meet the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense; even the count is wrong, the fourteen different worlds and our own give a total of fifteen ;-) --Huon 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Skinnyweed 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passes WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC. Recury 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as complete nonsense made up at school one day. Agent 86 00:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You must mean Keep as it was made up at a research university.Superbo 00:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm, which research university? Any verifiable citation? I thought not. NawlinWiki 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. TheRingess 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article needs time to grow organically as all articles do. Taffmonster 01:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the above user's only contributions to WP are to this and related articles and talk/deletion pages -- probably a sockpuppet of User:Superbo as was the anon IP. NawlinWiki 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (move to Patent Nonsense if anyone finds it funny enough). The discussion page is talking about a publication on it (which I doubt highly), but if it gets published it might then be a viable page to recreate. I'm doing a fair bit of assuming good faith here, I should add. BigHaz 01:43, 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. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public bodies and task forces of the UK government[edit]

This article is simply a very large list with 90%+ redlinks Gay Cdn 22:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Duplicates Category:Public bodies and task forces of the United Kingdom government. Tevildo 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like it was largely one person's project and was almost abandoned. It is hard to see why anyone would want to spend time maintaining it. While there are some important entities on the list, they have articles, and there appear to be a great many ephemeral items which aren't article worthy and certainly won't get articles now. Hundreds of them would be redirects at best - and redirects which would most likely never be used by anyone. Also, the source data is now seriously out of date (and it may have been a copyvio in the first place). Osomec 03:24, 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 delete. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia in the Network of Al Qaeda terrorists[edit]

Likely a POV partisan argument. Certainly original research - signed article by a professor with same name as article creator. NawlinWiki 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: the article has been blanked for copyvio. The version you are voting on is here. Viridae ^Talk 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment listed as copyvio. Viridae ^Talk 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and as badly written POV at that. SM247^{My Talk} 01:54, 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 closed, as the previous AFD is still active. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tang[edit]

Previously nominated, blanked AfD. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like the previous AfD is still live. Does this need admin intervention to correct? Tevildo 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either way. wikipediatrix 23:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, the original AFD lives on even if the tag is prematurely removed from the page since they exist on separate pages. If someone removes the tag, you can go through the old page history and bring it back. hateless 23:45, 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. Joyous! | Talk 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interbay Superstar[edit]

NN term coined by some blogger, article is even written by her! Bill (who is cool!) 22:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neogolism. Viridae ^Talk 22:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article even states that the concept is only "locally relevant". wikipediatrix 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Viridae. --Phl3djo 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal preservation-cause theory[edit]

Original research, admitted as such in the article itself, no Google hits, unverifiable. --Huon 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Temporal anti-paradox theory, which is a not-quite-redirect to the above, also no Google hits. --Huon 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Original research. Viridae ^Talk 22:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. More of a neologism - it's not an uncommon theme in time-travel stories, after all - but definitely something the author's made up himself. Tevildo 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; original research. --Gray Porpoise 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even original, not likely search term. SM247^{My Talk} 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete either articles; Cannot be proven or disproven anymore than the grandfather clause or the Novikov self-consistency principle, Novikov's work is original as well, whether published or not. --Ventralshark 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Original research in the Wikipedia context means new research/analysis not previously published, which is by definition not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. 24.19.184.243 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms 24.19.184.243 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete; Mark as original work warning and leave it be, let the public decide for themselves about its validity. --Physical 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suggest you take a look at wikipedia's policy on original research. Viridae ^Talk 04:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as keeping it is damageable to the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both nominated articles per WP:NOR. --Christopher Thomas 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. Original research. Mike Peel 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. Unless it can be referenced to an existing source, it doesn't belong on WP. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALRIGHT!!! DELETE IT ALREADY, I WROTE THE ARTICLE, JUST DELETE IT, I'M TIRED OF BEING DISCREDITED!!!!--Cutesmartguy 17:29, 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. Roy A.A. 01:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Liquid[edit]

Appears to be a highly munged reference to binary chemical weapons. Initially I tagged it for cleanup but I think perhaps really it need to go away. Artw 23:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A1 - No context. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. It is nonsense. A binary liquid is merely a liquid which is mixture of two components. --Bduke 00:25, 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. Rob ert 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rune2maniax[edit]

Advertisment. The article very clearly states, "i edited this page because i want to make an advert to my site." Can't get more obvious than that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete per nom. Thought about a G2, but not really a _test_ page. Tevildo 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Skinnyweed 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite creator's honesty (unlike, for example, Only Fourteen Worlds Theory discussion, above) NawlinWiki 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 Bwithh 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unfortunately, A7 only applies to real people and groups of them, not websites or corporations or fictional characters. Tevildo 08:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is a fansite for RuneScape. It gets 8 google hits. Every major fansite for RuneScape has been denied their page and this web page doesn't even deserve AFD'ing. J.J.Sagnella 08:09, 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 and redirect to Digital audio. —Wh o uk (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Audio Technology[edit]

Reads like a promotion for a single course at Cogswell College ([120]), which barely warrants an article of its own (especially when considering the college's article itself remains so thin). Not sure whether it warrants a delete, merge or what. ~ Matticus78 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Digital audio. Tevildo 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though to be fair, the article is not about a single course but rather about a program. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Digital audio. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:45, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentland CRT[edit]

Non-notable neighborhood. Originally prodded [121], but prod removed by author [122]. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. We don't have explicit notability criteria for places - perhaps a deficiency in the system? However, considering that people are prepared to fight tooth-and-nail over individual high schools and roads, I think it's reasonable to say that neighbourhoods at this scale aren't, at least, obviously non-notable. And it's good to see a reasonably well-put-together article from one of our younger contributors, although I accept that this isn't really relevant. Tevildo 23:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're right, I'm not aware of any specific guideline to cover neighborhoods. The closest thing I can think of is that this would be considered a minor street, which is generally not notable according to precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Transportation_and_geography. In my opinion though, the main problem here is that the article is painfully devoid of any assertion of notability or importance whatsoever. Shouldn't it make some kind of claim of importance? It also fails WP:VERIFY as it stands, and may be so small as to not be verifiable at all. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until sources can be found. - brenneman ^{L} 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I laughed at "this article is now concluded." There is no asseration of notability for this street/neighborhood. It is just merely a description of a normal place. The simplest way to put notability, is to ask: how does article seperate itself from other subjects of similar nature and not be part of the normality. Ways to prove notability, would be uniqueness in structure, population, culture, etc. and/or outside non-trivial coverage. That does not exist for this article and it is just a simple place that isn't yet worthy of recording. Yank sox 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come on, are we really going to debate this one? The article is nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 04:34, 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, but cleanup. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet taxes[edit]

Though I'd adding this for AfD, this is good information and I would prefer to see this merged rather than deleted. Any suggestions? RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs appropriate references and sources, and (in the long term) references to jurisdictions other than the USA, but I think it's a suitably encyclopaedic topic, and that the current content is a good starting point for a more thorough coverage of the issue. Tevildo 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I can't find an existing article that would be appropriate for merging to, and this is an important topic that has certainly had its share of coverage in the major media. Yes, the article as it stands needs work, but with the recent hullabaloo over things like charging per email [123] or the somewhat-related net neutrality issue, I can see an article like this being important and informative if done right. Though I can't help but feel "Internet taxation" works better as a title (referring to the act of taxation rather than just the taxes, i.e. the money collected, if you follow me). ~ Matticus78 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Matticus78 that "Internet taxation" would be a better name for the article. Tevildo 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As original author, I observed that the nomination for deletion (really for merging) was made when the first draft was merely a work in progress. I agree it needs more references and sources, and references to jurisdictions other than the USA, about which I know very little. But I agree with above commenters that it's a suitably encyclopaedic topic, and I meant the current content to be a starting summary onto which (I hope and expect) the Wikipedia community will jump with gusto. InternetJunky 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I noted in my nomination, the sole reason I placed this in the AfD is not to have the article deleted, but rather to attempt to find a better place for it, as "Internet taxes" is a rather loose title. I agree with the suggestion to have the article renamed to "Internet taxation." RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article badly needs references and sources. Currently in poor shape and has US-centric focus. I'm Neutral on delete/keep Bwithh 04:53, 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 original research. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time-of-day effect[edit]

Personal opinion or original research; unsourced and unverifiable as is. NawlinWiki 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALLS. SM247^{My Talk} 01:55, 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. Rob ert 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spotlight Realty[edit]

Non-notable business. Em-jay-es 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Tevildo 00:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local business and vanispamcruftisement SM247^{My Talk} 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:CORP guidelines. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Pascal.Tesson 04:32, 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Ian Manka Talk to me! 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guyfriend[edit]

Dicdef. Voortle 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary if not expanded.--Jusjih 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikitionary, if already included then delete otherwise. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NEO Pascal.Tesson 04:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal. Inner Earth 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary, as nom. pointed out, this is a simple definition. -- danntm ^{T | C} 04:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per nom, and consider a redirect to boyfriend, which is what the page formerly did. -- dcclark (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect to friend. Helicoptor 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 Speedy keep Seems a little WP:POINTish. Computerjoe 's talk 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mother[edit]

Long dicdef. Some of the content is also questionable, for example, the Romania comment. Voortle 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a long dicdef, e.g. includes info on Mother's day, Virgin Mary, linguistic notes, etc. Suggest contacting the author to clear up the Romania content. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up and Expand (add expand tags). Clearly there's room for much expansion beyond Dicdef. Romania comment should be removed, unless we're going to run social anthropology kinship notes on family structures of all varieties in different cultures(and believe me, there's a LOT of variety). The international section needs some wikification. Bwithh 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Jusjih 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see why this article was nominated, but I think that the information on "Mother's day" and other names for one's mother ("mum", "ma"), put it over the top as more than a dicdef. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Not a dictionary definition. If it needs fixing, fix it, or ask someone to do so. Fg2 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the moment it looks like OR. OK, there are references at the end but most statements are not directly sourced. Wonder if it is OR or where it is from? BlueValour 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Stating well known information without a source is not OR. Please read the relevant guidelines again. Osomec 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Is this a good faith nomination? Sure, cleanup, but really, now. SM247^{My Talk} 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Osomec 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see this article explain the etymology behind how the word is used in so many languages.
Keep Why delete it now? --Alexie 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course; any encyclopedia needs an article on the concept of "mother". I suspect the reason both this article and Father are so stubby is that it's intimidating to attempt to expand such a huge topic. Where to begin? How to avoid cultural bias? How to avoid original research and stereotypes? I will say "clean up" but whoever does clean it up will have both my admiration and my sympathy. User:Angr 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the nominator's logic, we should also delete father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, man, woman, etc. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. man and woman are different from this article in that they're beyond a long dicdef and have much encyclopedic content, whereas this article is not and contains questionable content. Voortle 16:27, 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 --Eloquence * 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding Nair International[edit]

Reason blatant advertising, no links incoming— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richhoncho (talk • contribs)

Delete nn--Jusjih 01:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and badly written spam at that! BlueValour 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam spam spam spam... SM247^{My Talk} 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all AdamBiswanger1 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it was soemthing to be included, this wouldn't be it. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:42, 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.