Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 31 November 2 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Archie Manning. --Coredesat 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Manning[edit]

The subject of the article does not merit inclusion per WP:BIO in Wikipedia neither as a short-term college football player or as a relative of notable Mannings. As far as his own career, there is no evidence that any of the work in his field meets notablity guidelines, either. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Archie Manning where he's already covered. No need to merge. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, unfortunately a famous father and two famous brothers does not notability make --Steve 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not object to a redirect. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Jcam 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per above ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability. — ERcheck (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per above, this is already covered in a section on another article. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Due to the specific nature of the Manning family. His 2 brothers are 2 of the most famous quarterbacks in the NFL today, as was their father in his day. This naturally leads to the question of what happened to the 3rd son. This has come up in my circles twice in the past month, so I looked it up today. I found the answer (a career-ending spinal disease), and therefore I don't think this article should be deleted. Under normal circumstances, being a relative of a notable person does not make one notable, but the special circumstances here warrant an exception. Axlrosen 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Archie Manning. NawlinWiki 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Archie Manning.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as noted above. For a subject with NO Independant notability, the mentions in other articles are sufficient. --Jayron32 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he should have his own page!! Audiobooks 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect' We have established on WP that just being related to someone famous does NOT make person famous as well. TJ Spyke 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Bill Clark 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Redirect mmm, The problem with redirection is that you will need to search for the appropriate section. Keep is not good either since it fails WP:BIO for the moment. The lesser of two evils seems to be redirect to me. But I don't like that to be honest... -- lucasbfr talk 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He comes up a lot in Manning discussions, meets WP:BIO, and absolutely is worthy of having an article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BDJ, this is what BIO means when it says, "non-trivial coverage" - crz crztalk 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect per above. Those articles could be used as sources in the Archie Manning article.--Cúchullain t/c 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The definition of non-notability.--Yannismarou 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Notability is not inherited. To include him based on his having had a debilitating spinal disease would be speculation on what he could have become. Wiki is not a crystal-ball. Ohconfucius 12:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually in favor of Keep. In this case, there doesn't seem to be much meat to the article, though, so I'd like to see a little more behind the article to justify retaining it. Even so, I agree that a ton of folks want to know about Cooper, so I'd like to see it stay. Capnpen 03:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect. No WP:BIO here, nowhere close. Redirect only b/c covered in Archie article. Not exacltly a plausible search term, either...- crz crztalk 17:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 04:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagineering (software company)[edit]

The article has been a one-liner since April 2005: Imagineering was a game development company located in Glen Rock, New Jersey with a defunct external link. Prod was contested, so hopefully this AfD can either establish notability (and expand the article) or decide the article needs to get deleted. I can't find anything among the 250-odd Google hits or 2 Newsbank listings. (Note: this is not Walt Disney Imagineering.) ~ trialsanderrors 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bizarrely, there's like 4 times more text about this company in Glen Rock, New Jersey#Trivia. According to their mobygames history[1], this company was active in 1986-91, and developed or ported about 24 minor games for mainly console/handheld platforms. I don't see any notable (encylopedically or not) original games on the list. Bwithh 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the MobyGames development list. It's obvious that they had a hand in a number of games, and there's no reason not to have this article here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable game developer --Steve 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doubt this article could be expanded more than the tiny stub it is. Definitely non-notable company. Jcam 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per badlydrawnjeff, on the condition that the article be rewritten/expanded. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. TJ Spyke 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep provided it can be expanded with sources, as it is probably borderline on meeting standards. Otherwise, delete. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand, source, and clean up.--TBCΦtalk? 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ozzykhan 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article can be expanded with the moby games reference; since it is mentioned in reliable 3rd party references (mobygames), it may be able to rise above the notability baseline. Individual reviews of many of their games can be found; they were wide release games, therefore notability can be extended to this article. If it doesn't already exist, a disambig should be availible to direct people towards the disney term. --Jayron32 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, did you click through on the mobygames link? ~ trialsanderrors 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply the mobygames link establishes that the company made real, notable products (games that themselves are notable). Therefore, we can use the individual reviews of the games in question to expand the article with real, reliable references. Thus, keep the article. --Jayron32 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't log in, but mobygames looks like a wiki to me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a real company. I played their games Audiobooks 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Existence is not in dispute. JoshuaZ 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep since they are dead for a long time now and did not make that many games. To be honest the fact that they commited 2 Home Alone games should make them banned ;) -- lucasbfr talk 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" as required by WP:CORP, and there's zero content in the Mobygames link as of right now. Sandstein 06:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sanstein. I'm willing to change that if someone can find evidence this fulfills WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 07:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Sandstein and JoshuaZ.--Cúchullain t/c 00:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1: Delete otherwise: there is no article here to consider. Close your Google tab: we are considering this article, not this company. Is this article discursive in any way? Is there any context at all, other than geographic? Is there any significance attributed by the article? If the answer to all of that is "no," then this is an A1. If your Google tab has hits in it all the same, that merely tells you that an article is possible, and, if you overwrote and created an article now, it might get consideration. "Jiminy is a cricket in a movie" is not an article: it's a fact. Geogre 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I don't think anyone disputes that the article should be expanded if it is to be kept. But we shouldn't delete substubs for encyclopedic subjects with potential for expansion. IMO their publishing record confers enough notability to make them encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per the immediately above. pfahlstrom 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if somebody actually finds something enyclopedic to say about this company. The article is pretty much context free and has been for over a year; the external link provided is empty. --kingboyk 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly per brighterorange who makes a very convincing argument. Yamaguchi先生 05:21, 4 November 2006
    • With respect, I disagree. Nobody's saying a new article can't be created if new info comes to light. --kingboyk 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Note that the Mobygames reference is just a blank entry in their database. Alternately, recreate as an article about the Japanese game developer by the same name, which seems to actually have some released products. --Alan Au 09:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could creatse several such "articles". Pavel Vozenilek 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As expanded, the article deserves retention based on the scope of games the company had produced. Nintendo allowed games to be produced by a very limited number of vendors. Alansohn 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Loves Eric Raymond[edit]

Web comic with no assertion of notability. Previously prod'ed, so I'm bringing it here.
Associated redirect:

—ptk✰fgs 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I have heard of this one, which is no real measure, but I recall some coverage --Steve 02:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, barely notable outside of a small Internet community. Someone will surely bring up the 39,000 Google Hit count, but that is actually a very low figure for webcomics, blogs, and other Internet-specific content. Andrew Levine 03:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudo (because anon) keep Notable enough to have drawn comments from the real life figures parodied in the comic (as mentioned in the article). Not the world's most popular webcomic, obviously, but for it's geek audience it is notable. 137.111.13.34 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not important enough. Smells a little like spam, too. Jermor 06:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I think this webcomic is fairly notable, I might even have seen it in a Linux magazine. JIP | Talk 06:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no verifiable third-party reliable sources suggesting any sort of achievement or significance. WP:NOT an internet guide. Fails the WP:WEB notability guideline as well for the triple crown. -- Dragonfiend 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. John Vandenberg 06:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Speedy Keep Strong Keep. It has been assessed as a Start class article. see Version 1.0 Editorial Team. John Vandenberg 07:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As part of our webcomics wikiproject, we went through and labeled every non-stub webcomic article we could find as start class or higher. It was not intended as a measure of anything other than that, for example, "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added." We may have been wrong in doing so, but it certainly was not intended as a labelling every non-stub a "speedy keep." -- Dragonfiend 07:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I used speedy keep was that the article has passed by the eyes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I have changed that to Strong Keep in light of what you have said. In my opinion, this webcomic is notable due to the satirical content being acknowledged by the subjects and the process used to create the comic being novel if not original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jayvdb (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 November 2006
        • Indeed, the comic is one of few (2?) known to the Creative Commons staff to be licensed under the CC. No other CC comics are known to use a wiki in creating the scripts. Ruleke 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend. TJ Spyke 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per JIP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of encyclopedic notability, unverified claims about feedback from subjects and wider coverage (the "I think I've seen some coverage of it somewhere" claims don't help; and even if verified, this may not be encyclopedically notable anyway - reactions are brief emails ranging from this-is-funny-but-stupid to this-is-stupid-but-not-funny), fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT, WP:V as per Dragonfiend. Bwithh 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Notable enough...needs more work. Is there something related it could be merged with? Ozzykhan 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what we lack here is INDEPENDANT review in RELIABLE SOURCES. People chatting about it in blogs don't count. Get us some independant reviews in reliable sources, and I will change my vote. --Jayron32 19:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel that I should add here that I do think ELER is highly hilarious, and I've certainly not nominated it out of any animosity toward the comic itself. —ptk✰fgs 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V's requirement for reliable sources. Wickethewok 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . I don't. Guy 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I've-heard-of-it-outside-Wikipedia yeppers, funny-like, yes, somewhat widely known, yes, but is it famous enough? This is a relatively young webcomic that has not really yet seen a lot of media exposure, as far as I know. I don't think that it's really all that remarkable that the people parodied in the comic (ESR, RMS, Linus, Gerv Markham, Bruce Schneier, etc) have voiced their opinions on the comic. They probably have a lot of opinions about other things too; we wouldn't write articles on that merit alone ("Category:Stuff that Eric S. Raymond hates" would be a pretty Uncyclopedic category). I guess it's probably better to delete it now, give it a year or so, and if it can be demonstrated it has grown beyond "a webcomic that a bunch of geeks really like" (as in "some real IT media mentions"), then it's time to work on this. And I don't really mind seeing a mention of it in Eric S. Raymond article either; it's relevant there. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comic has been reviewed on lugradio and has been mentioned on it since. Eric Raymond also got questions about it in an interview on a later radio show. [2]. The author of the comic has been invited to and has given a presentation about the process used to create the comic on the LUG radio live 2006 convention [3]. Ruleke 13:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The webcomic is widely read in the open source community. Robert Brockway 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think those are pretty trivial mentions. If someone provides verifiable sources, I'll consider changing my vote.--Cúchullain t/c 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep They've got me convinced. --Kizor 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi, I found two "published" references, but they are pretty obscure, so I wont hold you to your promise. And im pretty sure I've looked at all 39,800 references. So, I agree it isnt broadly referenced, but I dont think it is needs to be deleted for that reason, after it's verifiable because it is on the commons. John Vandenberg 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More notable than, and just as encyclopedic as Squilliam Fancyson.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsr4ever (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 November 2006

  • Keep Has a following in the FOSS community and follows FOSS events - if you are going to delete this, why not delete Lugradio as well???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 November 2006
    • Comment Don't DO that. They might follow your advice. --Kizor 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is widely read and cult-like within open source communities. Secretlondon 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely read in FOSS community, very often linked (albeit for jokes) from slashdot.org bubu~ 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of Wikipedia's primary advantages over a traditional encyclopedia is the freedom from space constraints that keep all but the most prominent items out. I've heard of this outside of WP, I know people who read it. Kwertii 23:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not particularily notable, not particularily funny.. but this is an online encyclopedia, and I see no reason to remove the entry (it's not like wikipedia's running out of space or something) 74.108.47.35 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It is well known in the community it targets. In particular, it has had feedback from the people it parodies. --James 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Bloody Vikings... Guy 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitgravity[edit]

New company, fails WP:CORP. Article was written by company founder against the guidelines in Wikipedia:Autobiography Trysha (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have eggs and spam, eggs bacon and spam, eggs, bacon sausage and spam, eggs, spam, and spam.... --Jayron32 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Cbrown1023 21:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD G10 (article serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject). Guy 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torture twelve[edit]

This article is a neologism that, by its own admission, has not appeared in any print sources, and is very nearly an attack page. I nominated it for proposed deletion, and User:Catchpole removed the tag. NatusRoma | Talk 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Alphachimp 04:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasts of the Xtreme[edit]

Does not assert meeting WP:CORP. PROD (added by another user) was removed without discussion and stated "The notability of this is unclear, as is its phrasing; one cannot immediately tell whether they have released popular games, freeware versions of popular games, or just their own games and levels, and their "most famous piece of work" is a redlink" --W.marsh 01:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP, also, the main site is a 404. - Trysha (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete releasing map packs and extra levels for old games on an obscure platform --Steve 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RISC OS is not an obscure platform, it is an alternative to the mainstream OS's 09:23, 1 November 2006 (GMT)
    • The obscurity of a platform is irrelevant to whether this article, on a company, should be kept or not. If you wish to make an argument for keeping, please cite sources to show that this company satisfies one or more of the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 11:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By WP:CORP. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Cbrown1023 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Bill Clark 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zippie Picnic[edit]

Nomination for deletion Unable to verify encyclopedic notability . Possibly no encyclopedic notability. All I can find is a few google hits for mainly more recent "Zippy picnics" on websites which do not meet reliable source (WP:RS) standards[4] and this Ebay item[5] is the only relevant hit for "Zippie Picnic". So fails WP:V altogether at the moment. If this really can be shown to be an encyclopedically notable and verifiable event during the Second Summer of Love, then great. I salute the late 20th century UK counterculture and I salute lovely Hampstead Heath. But at the moment, it's not looking good. Bwithh 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did do a Factiva database run, but there were no relevant hits for this event during the period it was supposed to take place Bwithh 03:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not prove notability; few Google hits; little information anywhere about this. I would say it was a pinhead article, but I'm afraid somebody wouldn't get the pun and would nag at me for contravening WP:CIVIL. --Charlene 02:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's Zippy Picnic as [6] and somewhere in [7], and seems to have turned into an annual event --Steve 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pointed that out in my nomination, but I as say above, these are not reliable sources. Bwithh 14:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rupok[edit]

Very little notability, only one sentence in the article and this information has already been stated in the Artcell article JenLouise 02:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angel (TMNT 2003 Episode)[edit]

Prodded with reason "Contains nothing that needs its own articl". WP:TV states "For most TV shows creating separate articles for each and every episode is not desired." Procedure nomination, so I abstain. JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 03:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Given that this is one article in a series, is there an intent to delete further articles about this TV show? If so, perhaps this nomination should be made reflecting that. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. Perhaps. I only found this one through prod patrol. I'll examine the others as well. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 04:47, 1 November 2006
OK, based on a sampling of the articles I read, I think that they all are similar to this one in terms of not providing individual notability sufficient for separate articles. I believe that the episode list sufficiently encapsulates the information in each episode article (and certainly should be kept). So, basically, yes, the nomination should be changed to reflect deleting all of them. What would be the best way for me to do that? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, found the correct information. Sigh. This is not something I would have expected to do while prod patrolling... --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before you do that, I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Squirtle Squad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode) among others, just so you're sure this is something you want to do. But yeah, if you don't want to do it, don't. FrozenPurpleCube 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, wish I had seen that about 30 minutes ago... Yeah, never mind. Speedy close this, please, I withdraw the nomination(s). Should've known the Pokémon test would come into play here...--JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Alphachimp 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alive in Christ[edit]

Not notable. This is a small affiliate group of Exodus International mentioned in one Boston Globe article. I found no other non-trivial references in Google except for some interested parties discussing the Globe article. --Flex 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My bias is that I don't like reparative therapy orgs. However, Wikipedia has no policy (contrary to popular belief) that non-notable articles should be deleted. However, an article should not contain information that cannot be verified in books, trusted websites, the press, or even this org's newsletter. So the question is, is there such verifiable info this org exists? I find it hard to believe there is not. Even a brief mention will show it exists. Whether the rest of the info in the article is verifiable is not an issue here. That info should be removed and the article should remain a stub, but it still has a right to exist as a stub. --Ephilei 03:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re deletion: WP:N says, "Topics in most areas must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to remain on Wikipedia." This guideline appears to contradict your assertion regarding popular belief. Re the continued existence of this article: the proposed guideline WP:ORG says, "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability [n.b., not mere existence] is established through reliable and verifiable sources." --Flex 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, WP:V explicity states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth (ie verifiability and not existence). --Wafulz 04:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "Alive in Christ" is so common (there are numerous 100-year-old churches named Alive in Christ, for instance) that it's difficult to tell how notable this organization is from Ghits. The article itself does not contain sufficient references to reliable secondary sources to fulfil the requirements of WP:V. --Charlene 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With such a generic name, it's next to impossible to get a solid idea from Google about how notable this organization is. As such, we have to rely on the article to prove notability... which it doesn't do. Buh-bye. EVula 05:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charlene and EVula. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Verifiable information, some of it added by the editor seeking deletion, is included on the page. The organizaton's name Alive in Christ appears at top, or near to top, on a variety of search engine returns. Multiple use of a smae name is no criteria. Reviwing the edit history of the editor seeking deletion I wonder if the criteria imight be political. CApitol3 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not assuming good faith, IMO. I'm simply seeking a vote on the merits: Is this org notable enough for an article of its own? It's true that I improved it as best I could after doing some digging, but in the end, I don't think it qualifies as significantly notable. --Flex 13:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it should be deleted because it has a generic name, I'm saying that to try to establish notability via Google is hard because of the name. I got about 23k ghits,[8] but from what I can tell, a lot of them have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Because of this, I have to rely on the article to say how the organization is notable, which it doesn't do. As a result, "Delete" is the only option. EVula 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Counting Google hits is not research, note. Research is reading what one's Google searches turn up. To that end, try refining your search in various ways, and reading what you find. Uncle G 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did try to qualify my Google search some (specifically: "Alive in Christ"-"church"-"Wikipedia"). Per your suggestion, though, I've refined it even further ("Alive in Christ"-"church"-"Wikipedia"-"book"-"music"-"sticker"-"blog"), and came up with 973 Google hits.[9] While I realize that using Google in and of itself isn't full research, the burden of notability still rests with the article itself; this one happens to not state anything about how the organization is notable, and as a result (coupled with the low Google hits) I don't feel comfortable with voting for anything more than "Delete". EVula 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per above comments, or perhaps merge some of it to Exodus International. Martinp23 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a generic term anyway. Guy 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Bill Clark 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Crumbsucker 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 06:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie[edit]

This page was previously nominated. It is not notable with compliance of WP:WEB: "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial." Since Albino Black Sheep is almost certainly less known than Newgrounds, there's not much reason for this to be here. The last passed "no consensus," but many of the supports stated "funniness" as a factor, which should not be one. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Alphachimp 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timberry[edit]

Unverified, probable hoax. Miwasatoshi nominated this for speedy deletion with rationale of unverifyable by reputable sources. Since that is not a valid criteria, I'm sending it here. I cannot find any reference for the article either. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't spell today. That should've been "unverifiable". Thanks for moving this to the right spot ... it's pretty clear this is a hoax in any case. There is no genus Ellisium, and the creator of this article has no other edits whatsoever. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Merge. -bobby 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Showcase Showdown[edit]

A user proposed a merge into Showcase Showdown (The Price Is Right). Go to that article's talk page and see for yourself. As for the disambiguation page itself, I think it is useless because there are only two links and nothing else whatsoever. Unless we add some more, I don't think we need this article. Gh87 03:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

petukh[edit]

This word is a transliteration of a Russian slang term (close in meaning to sissy or homo, see also ru:Опущенный) created by an anon about a year ago. This article is wrongly placed under categories Category:Russian society and Category:prisons in Russia where it clearly does not belong. In Google search there was just a few hits in English. For example, this article explaines usage of names for animals (kozel or a goat, korova or a cow, lisa or a fox) in Russian and English languages. If petukh deserves an entry in English Wikipedia so are transliterations of many other Russian dirty, pejorative, or otherwise offensive words. The article looks like it describes the caste system in Russian prisons, but it does not, in particular it does not cite sources. I may accept mentioning of "petukh" in articles like Russian prison slang or pejorative usage of animal names, or similar. If this article would not be deleted I could only recommend creating a category for Russian offensive words. Also if you like this article, you may also like transiliterations of all terms in this dictionary of Russian prison slang

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Russian dictionary. Although this explains where petaQ[10] comes from. --Charlene 04:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PetaQ is also spelled "Pahtak", suggesting that it may rather come from the Italian "patacca" (fr. pataque, sp. pataca, orginally the name of a large, but almost worthless coin) meaning "blot of dirt" and by extension "worthless thing", used as an insult in its masculine form, roughly equivalent to "sucker". Stammer 07:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word is common in Russian-American slang and widely heard e.g. in Brighton Beach. Stammer 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. What is important is not the word but whether the subject denoted by the word is encyclopaedic. The subject of this article is a caste in Russian prisons. To make an argument for keeping, show that an encyclopaedic discussion of this caste can be had, by citing sources to show that copious source material on the subject exists. Uncle G 11:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. One of the most important and widely known concepts of prison subculture.-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete.May be I did not make myself clear enough. The word is common... So is the phrase dumb ass, yet Wikipedia only has a redirect to Wiktionary. I understand why it is widely used on Brighton together with pridurok and others. Yet the usage of this offensive word on Brighton is not enough to describe the caste system in prisons. I need published sources. the most important and widely known concepts. Yet Google does not return English articles on the petukh caste except for the user edited online encyclopedias and some poorly translated Russian folklore. Please give me sources for the phrase petukh prison caste. I strongly recommend delete per WP:NEO. (Igny 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Dumbass is not the name of prison caste. If it was, I have no doubt that it would be in the Wikipedia. And it isn't neologism for sure. If you want sources, what's wrong with this one[11]? I'll try to find more. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source does not have the word petukh! It is a bunch of Russian prison slang terms written in Russian. Trying to bring new words into English by transliteration of words from other languages is not acceptable for English Wikipedia. The source which might be good enough for ru:Опущенный is not good enough for petukh. (Igny 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Yes petukh is very offensive word, but that is not the reason to delete the article, because WP:NOT (censored). Renaming to Lowered down [12], might be an option. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non encyclopedic material -- lucasbfr talk 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMO the issue here is the anthropological relevance of the subject matter. A look at Prison sexuality suggests that it's highly relevant. Prison slaves are not just a Russian phenomenon, but petukhi provide a vivid example. Stammer 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That they are but specific examples of a larger topic is why I suggested refactoring the article, citing the aforemented book (which discusses the social strata amongst Russian criminals that are revealed by prison tattoos), as one part of an overall topic. Uncle G 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your proposal has merit, but I would rather suggest creating an entry Prison slave, which may be linked to Prison sexuality and to Bullying (the Russian article ru:Опущенный describes a phenomenon that is not limited to prisons) and integrate Petukh in the resulting article. As it stands, however, the article is better than nothing. I have just added links to Bullying and to Dedovshchina to provide some context. Stammer 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really getting bored defending every subculture related article, that is going to be deleted anyway. Del per nom - could not argue with such reasoning. Gotta switch my attention to school choirs, boy, the standarts are much lower in that Wiki area. P.S. And yes this term is used in English academic literature "Gender, Generation and Identity in Contemporary Russia" by H. Pilkington [13] Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 09:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Petukh in Russian means rooster, period. As many other animal names it also has a pejorative usage. In particular it is used with regard to a caste of untouchables in Russian prison. Opuschennyi which literally means lowered down also has pejorative usage, same as petukh. If you want to describe the caste system in Russian prison then use proper names, that is untouchables(неприкасаемые, neprikasaemye, also izgoi, otverzhennye) for the lowest caste. You can then include the offensive names for the untouchables (петухи, гребни, пивни, шкварные, опущенные, обиженные) similar to chura, bhangi, neech, kanjjar, and mirasi in Dalit. I do not understand why some editors try to defend a troll who created the article on petukhs. If you want to describe the caste system in Russian prisons then do it properly, that is investigate the matter before trying to protect the trolling. (Igny 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    As I said before, there is procedure for articles that are not named properly and it's RM (not AfD). For me article on prison caste is no different from article on any Hindu caste, and who or why created this article has nothing to do with article itself. It can be sourced, it can be verified and nothing else matters. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me article on prison caste is no different from article on any Hindu caste. Good for you. For me, I have learnt about the subject more than I want to know trying to build a case for the removal. They are called untouchables for a reason, and I doubt that Russian editors contributed or will ever contribute to this article. As it currently stands, it looks like it was written by some teenager who just read a fiction novel about Russian prisons, it is simply not encyclopedic. which is good enough reason for speedy delete. Attempts to fix the article by adding to See also some links are plainly WP:OR. (Igny 21:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You can censor information, but you can't censor social reality. If you'll will remove information, that will not change social reality in the prisons. "Solving" problems this way is deemed to failure, as history of our former homeland called CCCP has proven. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am against censoring information. Give me a source which investigated the social degradation in Russian prisons and I might write an article myself. What I do not like in this article is trolling. (Igny 13:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. There is no serious evidence that this word has passed over into general use in the English speaking world. Irrelevant what it means. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone a foreign dictionary. Ohconfucius 12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If possible an article for the prison caste system should be written and petukh made to redirect to it - the word may not be "notable" enough on its own but the system is. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryse Casol[edit]

Prod tag was removed without comment. Does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria (no reliable sources) OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know how you determine who is a notable fauvism artist, but I would think that one would have to generate more than 12 google hits outside Wikipedia and mirrors. Fan-1967 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamie and Fan-1967,

    I understand your concern but this artist is fairly new in the art world and only one book ( Maitres & Epigones) has information on her so far. As I mentionned on your talk page, I am putting the results of my Phd thesis research as I find them, so unfortunately yes, not everything is there yet.

    I will be writting this thesis for the next year, so you should have more sources as I find the answers. What would you need in order to remove this tag?

    Thank you

    Henri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Henri Monet (talk • contribs) 2006-11-01 04:46:27

    • Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research, including primary research about artists. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. This process occurs outside of Wikipedia. You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia does not exist to be the first to document the previously undocumented. For an article on this person to be had, we need cited sources to demonstrate that the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied. Uncle G 11:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read your response as, basically, confirmation of my opinion above. You say "fairly new in the art world" and I would read that as "not yet Notable. Part of our notability definition is: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It does not appear this artist has yet achieved that. Fan-1967 15:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Henri, one obscure artbook means the artist is not notable enough for Wikipedia. You need to check the guidelines on notability and verifiability. --Steve 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nom and Fan-1967. -- Ektar 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Cbrown1023 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Good day dear friends.

    My name is Sam Aberg, art historian and international art critic, servant of arts for the last 30 years. I am also author of Maîtres & Epigones, a book that describes today's famous canadian painters. Book that has been distributed at 5000 copies across Canada, Europe and the USA. It is sad to see that some wikipedians may have opinions about artists with just a single Google search, while it takes professionnals months before having a final verdict.

    I do agree that Wikipedia must have rules to make sure its content meets notability and verific criterias, it is the base of any public encyclopedia. However, I believe it is a bit early to take decision before consulting experts in the art field.

    Thank you for your time

    Sam Aberg 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • We don't need to consult experts in the field. We just need pointers to where these experts have published books, articles, and studies of this person, as required by our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. What the experts in the field are for is writing those books, articles, and studies in the first place — i.e. for producing secondary sources. An encyclopaedia is a tertiary source. The Google searches are ways to locate the books, articles, and studies in the cases where no citations are provided in the article. Uncle G 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we can delay the vote for, say 1 week, to let these people the time to find some more sources on Maryse Carol? On the current state of the article, it should be deleted though. Unfortunately we really need to have verifiable contents, especially when it comes to living people. -- lucasbfr talk 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question is whether this artist is already well known in her field, in which case more than one book, and citations to major art journals, lists of major museums where she has been exhibited, etc. can be provided. If these sources can't provided, there's nothing to verify the claim that she is notable. I would agree to give the article's supporters extra time to add references. Andrew Levine 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(edit conflict) If claim to notability can be established in the future the article can be recreated at that time. Please note: this is not a judgement in any way on the artist's quality. This is someone who has generated practically no press notice at all anywhere. Being noticed by one art critic and one author may be a judgement on her quality, but it does not make her notable. Fan-1967 23:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we get book verification. However, Google News Archive has nothing [14] nor does Google Books. [15] Google Scholar comes up empty. [16]Capitalistroadster 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the Sam Aberg book is rather hard to judge as well, from its 5 other Google hits[17], which only announce it (or give a 404 error). Where is it available? Have the 5000 copies been sold, or just distributed? Has it been reviewed independently? For know, we have no way to know if it is a serious independent critical work, or some promo for young artists, or something else... Fram 22:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I was searching for information about Maryse Casol after seeing her exhibition that took place today downtown Montreal, I fell on this website. Guys, what is wrong with you? Why are you so eager to see this artist deleted? I have the impression everyone gets on this article and acts as if they were at the trial of Socrates: Kill! Kill! Kill! She is not famous enough for us, kill! Kill! Kill!

I know nothing about art, but one thing is for sure; EVERYONE thought her works were great today. Anyhow, I'm not coming back on your website, you have no more credibility to my eyes. --Lisa Dunkin 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And Oh, I forget. It's really easy to hide behind a keyboard and write all you want. I challenge anyone to be bold enough to call directly Maryse to ask her what you want to know: <<PHONE NUMBER REMOVED>>

Love,Lisa --Lisa Dunkin 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have removed the phone number for privacy reasons. Andrew Levine 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I take exception to this piece of editing, I admire the energy put into the promotion of Ms Casol and her work. Dates provided in the article lead me to assume that Ms Casol has only been exhibiting her work publicly for two years. I suggest that it may be premature to include an article at this point in her career. I will add that I find it odd that, inclusion in M. Aberg's book aside, there appears to be no other information on the painter available in print form. I refer here not only to art magazines, but to the four Montreal daily newspapers. One final observation: the article lifts copywritten material from the artist's website [18]. As such it runs contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPS guideline and is a violation of WP:C. Victoriagirl 04:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Dear friends,

I have read the totality of this discussion, and must thank you all for taking the time to write very good arguments. You see, I believe everyone has a purpose in this world. I was lucky to get the gift to make people happy threw my art. Now, if your purpose is to destroy the work of a few trying to build something positive, I respect that. You know, beeing on Wikipedia or not, won't change anything to me; I will still continue painting, and I will still bring hope to people.

Therefore, you can delete this article if you want.

I wish you all the best in your careers, goals or projects. Just remember that you too one day will need the help from others. That day, God will remember.

Sincerely,

Maryse Casol --Maryse Casol 06:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT To all the supporters and especially Maryse, do not take this issue personally. Because WP is open to all to edit, it has a constant credibility problem and so there are rules to try to keep at least a reasonable standard. Think about it if everyone decided to add bios on wp, it would not be a serious place. Maryse is a new artist, perhaps the article is a little premature given the WP standards. Copy the code aside so that it is not wasted editing, and perhaps in the near future, the existence of the article (if it gets deleted) will be non-disputable. --Shuki 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G11 - blatant copyright violation. Ohconfucius 13:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Delete ASAP To gain notability as a visual artist, there should be critical discourse in recognized journal and periodicals, an extensive exhibition history, or evidence of a signifigant contribution to the discipline. There is no evidence of any of the above. Wikipedia shouldn't be a free-for-all where anybody with the time can create an entry. I would ask you if you think your artistic contributions should entitle you to be in Brittanica. If not there, why here. And to whomever put Maryse in the main wiki article for Painting, under the history of contemporary painting, should be ashamed. It has been deleted--Thamiel
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Masters Swimming[edit]

nn swimming program, no more notable than a little league or a high school football conference. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. In absolutely no way, shape, or form is this encyclopedic. EVula 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reads like a group website hosted on geocities. Jermor 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, and certainly unencyclopedic. --SunStar Net 10:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. -bobby 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.-- lucasbfr talk 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Alexa rank has not been a part of WP:WEB for a long time, with good reason. Verifiable information is what we're after. W.marsh 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AskJolene[edit]

Not a notable website per WP:WEB and unlikely to be expanded. Uncle Bungle 04:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted without comment: With a rather remarkable Alexa rank of 860, and it's the top-ranked adult search engine. (The Sex List, which ranks second, has an overall rank of 52,001. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further: Several results about a minor kerfuffle regarding BMW, and there seem to be some Dutch results out there if you search on the CEO, Toine Verheul [19][20]. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even with the Alexa rank, I think it isn't really notable. What is there really to say about adult search engines? JIP | Talk 06:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really notable, is it "searchenginecruft"? --SunStar Net 10:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, based on the results Dhartung came up with.--Prosfilaes 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Clearly room for encyclopedic content about this. Unfocused 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Stronger evidence of encyclopedic notability needed to take this beyond web directory content. Also, Alexa rating is not totally reliable and is also vulnerable to manipulation. As this is a porn search engine company, they would be especially adept at spam-like tactics. But its doing well compared to Sex List, I'm willing to accept the Alexa result if something more encyclopedic can be produced and authoritatively verified Bwithh 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on Alexa, but it needs to be expanded considerably. 23skidoo 18:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May be a fairly notable porn search engine, but there really isn't much room for expansion. I mean, what can you say about a site like this? When you type in "lesbian threesomes" it returns you a list of sites with lesbian threesomes. Duh. Fan-1967 18:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How about ownership and traffic details? How about information about the infrastructure that runs the site? It seems we have more than enough information about other search engines to make articles about them. This is clearly a topic for an article, so someone wrote a completely appropriate stub. It may remain a stub for a while, but that in itself isn't harmful in any way. Unfocused 19:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment One can describe the traffic and infrastructure of any website on the internet, it doesn't make it notable. --Uncle Bungle 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. Notable is a guideline, not a policy. 2. See Alexa rank. 3. Top site in its class. Unfocused 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Alexa rank sufferes from some some statistical bias. The site hasn't done anything to "stand up and be counted". --Uncle Bungle 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean or why it matters. Are you suggesting that only websites that have done something important in this world are notable enough for wikipedia? I'm not sure you really have a firm grasp of what you are actually talking about.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:WEB. Cbrown1023 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I created the stub as a peripheral matter to another article, I really don't konw anything about the site but the fact that so many people use it seems to indicate that it at least is notable enough for a wikipedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless article --Nielswik(talk) 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Alexa rank, which has now even improved to 846. Since the article started less than two weeks ago, I don't see why it couldn't be expanded. Prolog 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of community bike programs[edit]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. The list is essentially a directory, with not only websites, but contact info (e-mail, phone, fax) and addresses. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral leaning to delete It should be deleted per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, but at the same time it seems like a useful, well-maintained list. Maybe we should just remove the addresses/e-mails and it would look less of a directory.--Húsönd 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Delete.--Húsönd 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is a directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no assertion of notability for any of the entries. Being an indiscriminate list of external links makes this spam and lifting material from commercial websites (e.g. [21][22]) makes this copyvio. So, Speedy Delete as G11 and G12. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this falls under G12, for the infringement might not have been introduced at once by a single person, as stated in WP:CSD#G12.--Húsönd 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be useful info for some people, but it's a directory. People can post information like this on their own websites (hosting is cheap anyway). Jermor 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's first edit summary [24] ("Created page. Moving information from a personal wiki site I used to run. Needs clean up") would seem to agree. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useful as it looks, it's a directory, and Wikipedia isn't. ♠PMC♠ 07:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a directory, and Wikipedia is not a directory. TheRanger 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a directory. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but maybe keep it somewhere to allow the contributors to put it on their own website? -- lucasbfr talk 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article was crap and didn't say anything that would establish notability when the delete comments were made. After it was rewritten by Haeleth, the whole things looks like a real article and no one who commented after that wanted to get rid of it. - Bobet 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurata Yasuaki[edit]

Was on speedy. Simce to be marginally notable to me. Quite old article on Japaneese wikiAlex Bakharev 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete No case made for notability in the article. Seems to be a minor character in both film and martial arts.Peter Rehse 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - The article does not assert why this individual is important. Tagged as such. -bobby 15:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current version of the article is certainly deletable, but if somebody writes a real article about this person it can probably be kept (assuming the interwiki link is correct). I have removed the speedy tag so there is some time for this. Kusma (討論) 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and because has like no context. Cbrown1023 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per all. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, there is no notability assertion -- lucasbfr talk 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; move to Yasuaki Kurata as the canonical name in English. I have rewritten this article to meet Wikipedia's basic quality standards. I couldn't be bothered to insert a full filmography section, but I think the article should stand without one. While the guy doesn't seem to be precisely world-famous, he seems to be notable within his field. (Non-notable people generally do not survive on the Japanese wikipedia.)
    At the very least, please note that all the "speedy delete" votes above are invalid, since they do not relate to the current article. — Haeleth Talk 12:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Haeleth. Rewritten article with sufficient notability. Neier 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My vote changes to keep from delete. I think the changes are a reasonable start.Peter Rehse 00:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias McGriff[edit]

Author deleted an attempt at a speedy. Essentially a vanity(I forget what the new euphemism is) article for a non-notable personage, with a lot of verbiage stating that the author is an unpublished author, and webmaster of a dead website and is now a tour guide. Author is Tmcgriff--Aim Here 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Wikipedia states deleting an attempt at a speedy is perfectly permissable so why is that an issue? The author of this article is also writing a book about pioneers of spirit communication and chose to register and enter an article about tobias mcgriff bc he is a relevant figure to this. Especially in the southeastern United States. The websites listed are merely matters of fact not an encouragement to visit. I suppose you would say that it was an attempt to gather followers if the sites did work though wouldnt you? Additionally, I am not sure why the author did not state some of the other works of Tobias McGriff but he is a multiple published author in online articles and magazines. I say you may want to delete specific referneces to websites and book names but the subject matter is relevant and to say that someone is a non-notable personage is very subjective. Someone that comes to wikipedid to research EVP would probably ver well be familiar with Mr. McGriff. I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbuyers (talk • contribs)

Note: The above comment is the only contribution by what appears to be a single-purpose account. --Dhartung | Talk 08:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it's not acceptable to delete speedy templates. Prod is okay, but speedies must be contested with the {{hangon}} template. Danny Lilithborne 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's two ghits for Tobias McGriff (a web forum posting), and NOTHING in the Library of Congress authored under that name. FWIW, the User:Jdbuyers is a brand new nick. WP:FAITH compels me to not accuse anyone of sockpuppetry at this early stage, but it does look suspicious. --Aim Here 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable person, no claim of notability. Rockpocket 07:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 08:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 08:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Tobias McGriff and I say DELETE as well. I appreciate the emails I got yesterday telling me of this debate taking place here on Wikipedia (which prompted me to create an account today)from some folks who are fans of the work SPC is doing and I do believe a local writer (original poster) and a couple of other recruited people signed up in order to post positive comments on my behalf (to confim the above users post about Jdbuyers being a new user). However, there are historical inaccuracies in the "bio" part of this article, the websites and works given are inaccurate, and the person who posted it used my last name as part of their Wikipedia sign up name which seems a little odd-although I think Wikipedia is a pretty good site I do not want an entry in it about myself or SPC regardless of the noteworthiness or remarkability. Thanks to all. -Tobias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiasMc (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 November 2006

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhatdamaged[edit]

A website that doesn't appear to be notable. It doesn't really fit any CSD criteria and a prod would surely be removed, so I'm taking it here. My vote is Delete'. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response It should be noted that the article specifies "Before the server crash in March of 2006, which rendered SomewhatDamaged.net inaccessible to all of North America and many other parts of the world even to this date". For further validation as to the existance of SomewhatDamaged.net, please contact the administrator of Clandemonium.net at the following email address: [email protected]. They should then be able to provide you with any and all information neccassary to "notarize" the website. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renholder5x (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Whether it exists or not is not the issue here, but whether it's notable. Danny Lilithborne 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You make a valid point, but to which I would ask you to "hold the phone" on the reccomendation that it be deleted. This is because the website should be back up sometime fairly soon, as should the premiering of the accompanying website, NepaDollz.com. This article is not inflicting any sort of damage on anyone, nor is it violating any reasonable terms of violation set forth by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renholder5x (talk • contribs)
  • Delete An Alexa ranking below 1,800,000 hardly indicates the "massive traffic" stated in the article. And if you have to email a webhost administrator, then the article is not verifiable by reliable secondary sources. NawlinWiki 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable website. Contacting a third party to verify information would count as original research, no? Evidence of notability needs to be presented in reliable (and verifiable) sources. EVula 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Delete G11 Blatant advertising. I'm changing my vote after seeing Robertbcole's response and Renholder5x's blanking of this AfD seems to suggest an attitude about Wikipedia's purpose that isn't quite in line with a NPOV encyclopedia (that and the extreme POV in the article). EVula 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons stated. Also, in response to RenHolder5x's comments about the former prestige of this website, I would point editors here. The Alexa traffic details for this site show that is has never entered the top 100,000 and page views are certainly nothing to gawk at. -bobby 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Ektar 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!! per above Ozzykhan 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused!!!! SomewhatDamaged.net is not my website, it is my brother's (hence the difference in the username) and I wrote this article as a birthday present for him. As for the accusations of "advertising", I would have to say false, especially concidering the website is not even currently up and may not be for some time. Renholder5x 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (note: this was actually posted by 24.51.173.178 (talk · contribs))[reply]
  • Delete per above. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a have-an-article-for-your-birthday site. Go buy him socks,ties and aftershave... Lemon martini 09:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empart[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifaxbox[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, alexa rank of over 6 million. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. Khatru2 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worship in Daily Life[edit]

Unencyclopedic, this seems like more of an essay than anything. Topic doesn't seem like a subject for an encyclopedia article. —Scott5114↗ 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I like it; it's a thoughtful essay, but it's not an encyclopedic article. Fan-1967 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Not a bad essay, but not a good encyclopedia article either. Jermor 06:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essay, would be better on Meta than here. --SunStar Net 10:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article doesn't cover anything not already discussed in a better format on the Worship page. -bobby 15:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, commentary rather than encyclopedic topic. NawlinWiki 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essay & above. Cbrown1023 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete meganfetter I would rather it wasn't deleted and I left a comment in the discuss with regards to this page. I am a little mad because the person who has put this article up for deletion has been trying to delete it ever since I have started writing it. It is not finished. Is there a way I can put that on the page? If you have a way I can change the article so it fits an encyclopedia better, I would appreciate it. This is the 3rd time I have asked for suggestions and no one has commented yet.
    • Comment It's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you want it kept, save it to your hard drive. Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no conensus to delete. Merge or transwiki possible (make sure Wikibooks wants it first though), but discuss this on the talk page. W.marsh 17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learning kanji[edit]

For over a year this article has consisted of little more than a collection of links. This is akin to creating a page called "learning the alphabet," or "learning to spell." It is unencyclopaedic and has no hope for expansion. Exploding Boy 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:NOT. How-to guides only belong in the Wikipedia namespace, and this isn't applicable to the use of Wikipedia. The problems with this article have been noted by several editors (see the talk page). Dekimasu 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and User:Dekimasu. JIP | Talk 06:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an instruction manual. I believe Wikibooks has a Japanese course already. ColourBurst 06:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as above. OBM | blah blah blah 10:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks --Haham hanuka 10:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikibooks already has a textbook containing lessons in Kanji and a JLPT Guide. Always check the target project before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article a how-to guide? It is purely descriptive, describing the various methods that different people and organizations employ for learning Kanji. It is not instructional at all. (Contrast it with the textbook at Wikibooks.) We have perfectly good articles on English language learning and teaching and Teaching English as a Foreign Language. It is systemic bias to think that we cannot have a good article on the learning and teaching of Kanji by various classes of people. Uncle G 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, I'll change my vote to keep (it describes methods, but doesn't tell people how to do it), but the "learning Kanji" title is a bit misleading (I think the active phrasing is what caused people to think it was a how-to manual). Can we rename the article like the Kanji learning techniques or Kanji learning? ColourBurst 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Uncle G, I normally agree with you, but you and I must have very different understandings of what systemic bias means. I do not feel that Wikipedia has any sort of systemic bias against Japan (quite to the contrary, thanks in large part to our many Japanese and Japanophile contributors), and I don't think that an article called "Learning Cyrillic" or "Learning the Greek alphabet" would be terribly successful at AfD. ergot 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep--this is not a how-to guide. It seems as if many of the Wikipedians did not even look at the article: as far as I can see, there are no how-to elements to it at all. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic is goal-oriented and thus unencyclopedic. The fact that it fails in guiding anyone doesn't take away from the fact that it's meant to be a how-to. The main section of the article, about the "number of characters to be learned," is written in terms that make it applicable only to foreigners studying Japanese. The topic sentences of both paragraphs are "Learners may be confused about how many characters they need to learn in order to read Japanese fluently" and "It is also not clear whether one must learn the entire jōyō kanji list in order to read a Japanese text" - logically, factually, and intuitively irrelevant questions to Japanese people, and written from the standpoint that there is a goal of learning the kanji. The lead discusses different methods of memorization. As noted by User:Ergot above, this is very much the equivalent of making an article called "Learning math" or "Learning words." Dekimasu 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Seems like a ripe article to be retitled, though. Unfocused 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is not a how to guide, it is a description of a teaching method for a subject. I could not learn how to write Kanji in any way by reading this article. I agree the title needs to be changed. Ratherhaveaheart 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least parts of this to kyoiku kanji, the general article about the Japanese official curriculum and teaching methods (I would prefer that article to be moved to an English language title as well. No one who doesn't already know what the official name for the curriculum in Japanese is will be able to find it as it stands.) Parts of this might be best suited for a general article about teaching Japanese as a foreign language; of course, the script is one of the hardest things about learning Japanese. I tend to agree that this isn't a how-to guide, but the title seems off. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge (as above) Ozzykhan 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Kanji. Not really a hot-to guide. Edison 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Smerdis, no opinion on what the title should be.--Cúchullain t/c 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great page, but I don't see any reason to delete it as it is informative and has no noticeable bias or offensive content.

  • Merge somewhere, I think; there is very little encyclopedic information here that is not already given in other places, and this article is a spam trap (man, just look at that external links section!)
    As for bias, how about the fact that this page discusses learning methods for a major writing system but only mentions one of the languages that use that writing system? It could possibly become a useful article if it also discussed teaching methods in China and for students of Chinese. There could be some interesting comparisons to make there.
    If kept, at the very least clean up external links. — Haeleth Talk 12:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. I have to say, I'm quite confused by the results of this AfD so far. I note that there is a Reading education article. Compare the two and you find that the reading education article is based on actual teaching methods and research, while the learning kanji article is based on commercial how-to guides and considers the "learning" at a personal level. There is no attempt in the learning kanji article to discuss the use of any teaching methods, other than to note that Japanese schoolchildren memorize kanji. The discussed books themselves are, quite honestly, not for serious language learners. And, while not necessarily a perfect indicator of anything, all of the commenters I know to be in Japan have voted to delete. Dekimasu 12:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the "article" paragraph-by-paragraph, the opening two paragraphs simply repeat information from other articles. The third paragraph is a brief review of commercial how-to guides. The second section consists of two paragraphs speculating about the completeness of the joyo kanji list that veers dangerously close to being original research. The entire balance of the article consists of links, either to various how-to books or systems, most of them off-site.
I questioned this article when it was first created. A year later, nothing about the article has changed. It can never be more than a collection of links, and as such is far more suited to a personal or commercial website than an encyclopaedia (can anyone imaging Britannica having an article like this?!)
Those who have voted to keep have not really provided any compelling reason to do so. No one has really given any reason beyond "this is not really a how-to guide." This is not really good enough, especially giving all the excellent reasons for deleting this article. If there was really a need for an article of this type, then it would have received a lot more attention over the last year, and would have morphed into more than the long stub it is right now. Exploding Boy 17:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't cover any ground that's not covered in Kanji or the two Wikibooks. It's not a how-to guide, as its title infers, and it's stayed this way for too long. Nothing to see here. KrakatoaKatie 13:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films (CSD G4) Duja► 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern weapons in films[edit]

A simple table of various makes of firearms and movie titles. Essentially a useless list of firearms/movie trivia, in practice uncompletable and a pop-culture cruft magnet. Calton | Talk 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are (what are essentially) duplicates of the above list:

--Calton | Talk 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Information about guns in movies really doesn't warrant an article. If there's one for this, then why not "Diet soda brands in films", etc. It's a pretty artificial connection. Jermor 06:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia's not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♠PMC♠ 07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cruft magnet indeed. --Guinnog 15:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nuked as a NN neologism by Lucky 6.9

Blerg[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we have a guideline against neologisms, of which this is a patent example. There is also no verification here through reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Terminate with extreme prejudice. Users who spend so much time creating so little content just leave me shaking my head in wonder. - Lucky 6.9 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annihilate - sigh, contested speedy deletion, seems the author believes this crud is worth keeping--Aim Here 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already! Neologism. Gods above, just nuke it. ♠PMC♠ 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. If Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it most certainly ain't an urban dictionary. Rockpocket 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable, worthless rubbish. Davidjk 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong un-delete. very-notable, anything but worthless rubbish. Nic 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky smells socks. Guess what Nic's total edit history is...? - Lucky 6.9 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. On the contrary, none of the IPs who voted to keep gave any reasons for keeping, nor any sources establishing notability. --Coredesat 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazytank[edit]

Just as other articles relating to CS maps have been deleted/merged, I propose a similar action for this page. I don't know enough about the game to tell whether the 1000 results on Google are enough to earn it a mention in Counter-Strike maps but it doesn't need its own listing. JayMars 06:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, 1000 Google hits doesn't remotely deserve its own article. ♠PMC♠ 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE per nomJoshTyler 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
    • Comment - Not a speedy delete candidate. -bobby 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% unadulterated WP:OR and no realistic prospect of ever being anything else. Guy 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys are so boring. What's the matter, just because this article is about something you don't know, it has to be deleted?? There are articles about the most boring and useless subjects here, yet these ones are kept. You can't call yourself a decent CS gamer is you don't know the Crazytank. This website is full of hypocrites. Just stop deleting everything that doesn't interest you, you dolts -Dr.Boo 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep counter-strike is the biggest online fps in the world, and this is probably the most famous map. 10,000,000 people (at least) have played this map, which makes it a lot more notable than half the stuff on wikipedia. As an aside, I'm continually amused at people who vote to delete stuff just to assert power. One wonders why they would object to more information in the database, other than just to be able to piss in someone's cheerios. Albania isn't notable to me, let's delete it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.147.189.91 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. As an aside, I'm continually amused at how people badmouth Wikipedia while simultaneously arguing that their articles be kept. --Alan Au 09:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no one was badmouthing wikipedia. i think there's just a little criticism of some of its users. if the shoe fits...
  • Keep The above user didn't even mention why the article should be removed. I'm certain a lot of you people get turned on by the idea that you have the power to delete articles. So much for freedom of speech.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.192.34.64 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Dye School[edit]

I had tagged this article for PROD for non-notability. The tag was removed, but the article doesn't appear to have been improved. Additionally, the one "reference" link doesn't work. There is no indication aside from two unreferenced claims about notable alumni that this school is notable in any way. ♠PMC♠ 07:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems notable as a celebrity school. Thought I'd find more/better sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. spank the nominator. Unfocused 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? "Spank the nominator" is hardly civil, let alone a rationale for keeping an article. ♠PMC♠ 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfair, Unfocused -- it was a lousy article when nominated. Although it seemed like a "don't delete, fix" to me, I think it was a fair nom. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we've had the schools discussion enough times and for long enough for almost anyone to know there's an alternative route available that should be tried first. Corporal punishment by the principal really is the only solution, since unprovoked nomination of a school is six demerits, and only four demerits is an automatic spanking. (Can you tell I refuse to take this entirely seriously?) Unfocused 01:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be careful, this will go on your permanent record. The beauty of Wikipedia is that every article is a moving target. Often (and I'm not suggesting that it be used as a justification), an AfD will impel those people who want to see worthy articles retained to take the time and effort to improve the article. Often the article that the nominator refered to and that many may have already voted to delete, is not what exists if another look was taken to see if appropriate changes have been made. Alansohn 01:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomination for deletion as a substitute for the moment it would take to do a contributing edit, or to tag it for positive attention is not just a paddlin' but five nights detention as well. Seriously, deletion is a moderately hostile act toward every previous editor of the article. It's the equivalent of telling them "hey, your work is not welcome here", which is not a good response to good faith efforts. Please don't excuse, or even worse, legitimize it's use as a "cleanup on demand" tag. Either the topic is worthwhile, or it's not. I think we've firmly established that there are enough interested editors to prevent the deletion of schools, other than the odd one that goes through here unnoticed or has a genuine critical flaw. Unfocused 05:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion is not a hostile act. I've had articles I've worked on get deleted. In some cases, I've totally re-written an article during the AfD only to have it still deleted. If that's what the community has decided about the topic then that's what is relevant. It says nothing at all to the editors in question. Anyone who feels that deletion is a hostile matter has a maturity issue. JoshuaZ 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion is most definitely not a hostile act. As Dhartung said, when the article was nominated, it was awful. It was unsourced and made dubious claims of notability. The problems I had with it have been adressed. I didn't AfD it to GET it fixed, although I'm pleased to see that it has been. I think you're demonizing the deletion process a little overmuch, Unfocused. I'm not insulting the previous editors, just voicing an opinion. ♠PMC♠ 07:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion being a necessary function does not make it any less a moderately hostile act. White blood cells attacking foreign germs is a hostile act, yet quite necessary to human life. Treat deletion as the hostile act that it is and we won't have nominations of classes of articles where there is clearly a well known, large and significant good faith opposition to deleting those articles. The first reaction to an awful article (especially those in a specific class where significant support has already be demonstrated) should be "can I fix this?" and the second "can this article be fixed by someone more interested in this topic?" If the answer to either is "yes", then nomination for deletion is wrong. No one says you can't trim an article down to the barest of stubs instead. Unfocused 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We don't want to relive the drama of the last "are schools notable?" debate. -bobby 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: which of the many recent and good school AfD debates would that be? I haven't seen much "drama" in them, just not enough people interested in discussing the actual merits of an article and its subject wrt Wikipedia policies beyond some dogmatic general principle position (from both sides). Fram 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thoroughly sourced, multiple notable alumni. Article needs more details, but more than exceeds the minimum required for a school article per WP:SCHOOLS and any other meaningful standard. Alansohn 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The barrier for elementary schools should be high, but the school has many notable almuni and thus has a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep lots of realy big stars went to this school!! keep Audiobooks 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The school is obviously notable, this nomination is a waste of time. Silensor 00:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the notable alumni (although I almost put a delete because of people with a III in their name) Fram 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school seems to have fairly notable alumni, and I would consider that a reason to keep. --SunStar Net 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nuff said...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school nomination is particularly perplexing, it should be rather evident that it is notable. Yamaguchi先生 04:33, 4 November 2006
  • Wesk Keep based on the notable alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanger (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Brask[edit]

I can't read Danish, so its difficult for me to assess this person's notability. However, the article creator is a User:Morten Brask so I have my doubts about whether he warrants a page. —Xezbeth 08:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only as Life[edit]

Suspected vanispamicruftisement. Article creator has added notes in other articles suggesting that this is the longest poem in the world (it's less than a tenth of the length of the world's longest poem). No assertion of notability. No notability. Vizjim 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. OBM | blah blah blah 09:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE per nom-Vanity JoshTyler 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
    • Comment - You really need to stop speedying things that don't qualify. Please read the messages on your talk page. -bobby 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As it presently reads, the article merely asserts that the poem is the longest by this poet. But um...so? I don't see anything at all notable in the wikipedia sense about this work. All we really have here is a slightly-annotated bibliographic entry of a non-notable creative work. The poet himself, Nikhil Parekh has a wiki page that isn't exactly over-crowded that could easily accomodate info about his various works, and thus those entries wouldn't need to meet WP notability criteria themselves. No reason to spread tiny tidbits across many sparse pages. DMacks 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified, notability not asserted, --SunStar Net 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • O! fulsome sarabands of the Stygian cosmos, Delete this darkling funicular of Cattarhyptine phlogiston. Auto movil 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication that this poem has any notability. NawlinWiki 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arma virumque cano for much longer than this. Delete. Fails to support any notability. Fan-1967 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but in its defense, it might be subjectively the longest poem ever composed. Auto movil 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, this has to be the world's longest poem by a poet, individually written. More so, it doesnt contain any elements of stage/drama/theater or any dramatical presentations, unlike many other long poems, which are merely stories or dramas or plays written in poetic form. This should stay as world's longest individual poem, by an individual award winning poet..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) — Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • That's not exactly what I meant, although I hesitate to clarify. Auto movil 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • After reading a few dozen verses I feel I know exactly what you meant. Fan-1967 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis is what I meant exactly. This poem by Nikhil Parekh is the longest ever originally written in the English Language and with tremendous authority and command over the language. It is virtually seen everywhere on the internet and appears in countless internet search results of countless search engines. It has been written with great originality and panache and demonstrates the sheer genius of the poet. It would be really pathetic to delete this and a great loss for the English Language poetry. I see no reason to delete. I havent seen a poem longer than this one, which is so originally pure in English and which doesnt contain any elements of Drama, Theater--or for that matter isnt a theaterical representation in a poetic form. This one's pure poetry from the heart of the poet, not a novel or a story written in the form of a poem with elements and dramatic characters in it. This one for me is an irrefutable keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolkeg908 (talk • contribs)
Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

    • A Clock stopped/Not the Mantel's/Geneva's farthest skill/Can't put the puppet bowing/That just now dangled still. -Emily Dickinson Auto movil 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're comparing these poems by Dickinson with Parekh's longest poem, then they stand or come nowhere near. His longest poem is far far long and the only of its kind written in modern English, which is the longest in the world. I havent come across any other poem in comparison to his which is as long and written originally in modern english, pure poetry, and that too individually. His longest poem rules, as far as the English language in its most original form is considered.Coolkeg908 04:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be the one to ask this, but are you the same person as Parekh? Such things happen all too frequently. I must insist that this is a simple question, easily answered. Auto movil 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now this is really funny. Mr. Parekh musnt even be knowing what's happening here. From the looks of his biography here at Wiki, he is world famous and doesnt have the time to fall into such arguments. Whether a page of his remains here at Wiki or not, how does it matter to him. There are several by his name here and all across the world at countless places. And to further clarify your raised objection, well let me have a roar first, no , am in noway Parekh. Yes, but I have read his works and researched a lot on him on the internet like I do for several others. And I for one, havent seen a poem as long as his in the world, having gone through millions of other web pages. Hope this answers your rather silly query. Also, I would implore you to stick to the subject and not raise such objectionably silly queries here in discussion. I would also like to point Wiki's attention to your absurb objection, which is quite offending to a fellow Wiki editor such as me. Coolkeg908 08:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a quite valid question in my opinion based on the pattern of your behavior here...symptoms of being a single-purpose account (as mentioned previously) and seemingly emotional attachment and intimate relation to the subject matter (poem and poet). Nobody's saying you are this other guy, but, as already noted, others have tried to play that game here. That is highly offensive to all editors and the way WP works, so a quick question of someone who has some appearances of that seems reasonable. DMacks 09:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've established that the poem is long. Anyone can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. It seems in your arguments, the length makes it inherently Notable. That opinion is not necessarily shared. Fan-1967 14:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, people can go on and on and on and on, endlessly. But then it should make sense. It should be articulately synchronized. It should be in poetic verse. It should be having/possessing some qualities atleast which distinguish it to be a poem. And this one by Parekh has it all. Its not just inundating the whole page with various combinations of words from the dictionary, from the first word to the last. That way, anyone could keep writing and writing and writing, without a break, and soon surpass Parekh's long poem too. But then its not a poem. Its virtual balderdash. Whilst this one by Parekh is a true poem written with great authority in the English language. It has a moral, a message and is poetically synthesized from the first to the last line. For me it should stay as I've said earlier, as its one of the most significantly written longest poems of the modern english language with great authority by a world class poet.Coolkeg908 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Significance", like "quality", is a judgement term, a matter of opinion. We don't do those. Neither amounts to (or is even related to) Wikipedia's standard of Notability. -- Fan-1967 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability as a poem, and we should have a look at that author, too. Oh, and the poem? It's hilariously bad. Read it. Sandstein 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it raises important questions concerning the subaltern role of adjectives in the so-called greater Western poetic tradition. Auto movil 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see somebody has taken care of it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikhil Parekh. Sandstein 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm starting to lose good faith, and THAT was cringeworthy to read. Delete it fast, delete it hard, and protect the page so we don't have to hurt our eyes like that. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 20:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, it seems the field is shrinking, not longest poem, but longest poem of X language, in modern dialogue etc. there is a point where notability is lost. --NuclearZer0 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado. Merge was done by Bpmullins, so this is procedural, and I'll clean up any problems. KrakatoaKatie 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stimoceiver[edit]

No verifiable, third-party sources. {{verify}}-tagged since February. Please delete. --Pjacobi 10:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no verifiability = no article. Seraphimblade 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
    • Comment - Please slow down the debate process and add more depth to your arguments. -bobby 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWeak Keep - The article is not verified and reads a bit like a hoax. Implanting a device in a bull's brain would require a delicate, expensive surgery and would not be undertaken lightly, especially by someone without veterinary training. As usual, if anyone can step forward with sources, I'd be more than happy to strike my earlier statement and reevaluate my suggestion. -bobby 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I'm still not convinced, but there is at least some sourcing now. I'm going to poke around on my own, but for now I've upgraded my suggestion. -bobby 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PMID 101139 is one of Delgado's papers on stimoceivers. The book by Delgado is ISBN 0829017658. You can find a review of the book's coverage of the stimoceiver here. Uncle G 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, this needs some research. It might even pass muster. There's a link in the related article Jose Delgado to a Scientific American back issue. The abstract looks like the full article may corroborate the article. The SciAm issue is a paid download; I'll see if the local library has a back issue I can check this in. -- Bpmullins 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest reading the "further reading" section of the article. ☺ Uncle G 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and reference, but I believe with a little work it is a keeper. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The proper home for this device is under its inventor. He is unquestionably notable and worthy of an entry. I'll merge this article there and provide sources. -- Bpmullins 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've done that. I think I bollixed up the details of the move though - the Stimoceiver article no longer has an AfD tag and the new article does. Slap my hand if necessary... In any event I think there's no shortage of sources now. -- Bpmullins 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content and Merge as Bpmullins has done. Bp - you probably should have added the content and voted "merge" pending the resolution of this AfD. However, you did such a nice job fleshing out the subject that I think we can forego the handslapping. -Kubigula (ave) 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think I've learned my lesson - and without doing too much violence to the process as well. I know better now... -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as autobiography following unprovoked invective from creator. In short: fuck off. Guy 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Alexander John McCoy[edit]

Negligible to no ghits, one results table link does not establish notability or work for a verifiable source. Seraphimblade 10:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off you gay fucking nerd cunt this is me you prick and i dont have any other links to verify you fuckin nerd. So piss off and let me keep my fuckin page. jase —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasethesurfy (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 November 2006.

Yeah Leave him alone you fuckin nerd its him just believe him you lonely nerd.....luv jo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasethesurfy (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 November 2006.

  • Delete per nom, for failing WP:BIO, and arguments from the article's creator.--Prosfilaes 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*SPEEDY DELETE per nom JoshTyler 15:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]

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

The result was keep after rewrite by User:Uncle G as a valid stub. Guy 13:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elermore Vale, New South Wales[edit]

no links, full of nonsense Oneiros 11:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:NFT... naturally article is also complete bollocks. Private jokes are so much fun. OBM | blah blah blah 11:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yes, I do like to read extensive coverage of the relationships between people I'll never meet in a city I'll probably never visit. It's keeping me on the edge of my seat. JIP | Talk 11:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Although I probably wont object on a proper article (whether if its a stub or not) is re-written --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC). Change to Keep I just noticed the re-written stub just then. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator Football[edit]

A schoolboy calculator game which is not notable in any sense (even if it actually exists). Seems linked to other possible hoaxes at Jared Nash and Eli Makowski. Pudgey 11:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:NFT with flying colours. Oh look, we're generating random numbers, and pretending we're playing Aussie football! Whatever will they think of next? JIP | Talk 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as your classic WP:NFT case. I'm amused by the article's claim that a calculator cricket game was invented in 2004, since one is already known to every Australian student from the earliest days of calculators with random-number generators. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain whether there's really any difference between Calculator Cricket and Calculator Football, other than the difference in the sport pretended to be played? Is it all just a series of seeing who has the larger random number, or are there more complicated rules? Could I create, say, Calculator Petanque simply by taking Calculator Cricket and replacing each mention of "cricket" with "petanque"? JIP | Talk 12:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NFT, as well as several other policies and guidelines. Question, though: do calculators made in Manchester do any better at this than those made in Sunderland? Guy 13:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE per nom JoshTyler 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable time-waster for programmable calculators. Caknuck 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; not notable (if it even exists) --Mhking 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caution is advised as at least one of these noxious hoaxes (Jared Nash) was a repost from about 2 weeks previous. I request an administrator check out what else this account has been up to. Also, someone may want to keep an eye on this dude and ensure that he doesn't repost these AGAIN. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Rai[edit]

This article was first created by User:Vikram rai. I moved[25] it to user page and speedied the article. But, a possible sockpuppet User:Finmin re-created the article, and also authored a new article on Vinod Rai (father of Vikram Rai). I've tagged Vinod Rai with {{cleanup-importance}} and {{references}}. Vinod Rai might be notable (he seems to on Board of Directors of some banks and is Secretary, Finance Sector, GoI), but Vikram Rai is certainly non-notable. The article claims that he has written a book "Technology M&A: A Guidebook" (not to confused with Ed Paulson's "The Technology M&A Guidebook"), and has two pending patents to his credit. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirected to Janitor. ➨ ЯEDVERS 13:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custodial arts[edit]

I don't think this could ever have anything that wouldn't belong better in janitor. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Please defer merge and redirect related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highpoint shopping centre[edit]

Contested prod, so taking this to afd for debate per procedure No opinion from me. --Arnzy (talk ·  contribs) 13:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE per nom-WP is not the yellow pages JoshTyler 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
  • Merge/Delete and Discipline Tuddy - The article is NN per here as mentioned. At best it can be merged. I propose the ban based on the user's childish edits (scroll down a bit/NSFW) and refusal to learn Wikipedia's policies. Please note by the user's contribs that they have a thing for articles about shopping centers/retail stores and that these articles are usually merged or deleted. Numerous attempts have been made to alert the user to their disruptiveness, but so far nothing has changed. -bobby 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication that this article meets WP:CORP. I would also point out that when I added a {{prod2}} tag to the page, that Rebecca (talk · contribs) came along and reverted me, something that I found extremely inappropriate.[26] --Elonka 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant retail shopping area. The article states: "It is a major centre and is the only shopping centre serving Melbourne's western suburbs, a population of at least half a million people."
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please supply some references verifying that it is a notable location, aside from the organization's own website? --Elonka 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News Archive comes up with nearly 150 sources for this see [27]. Capitalistroadster 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Most of those are passing mentions. Are there specific ones which you think are non-trivial? JoshuaZ 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 150 "passing mentions" in the news makes a place notable to me. And some are more than passing mentions. It's a very large shopping center. —Pengo talk · contribs 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the '150 mentions' include a whole pile of duplicates and few have much substance to them. BlueValour 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a very large shopping centre indeed and is almost a suburb of Melbourne in its own right. We have thousands of articles for places, centres etc that are smaller and less significant than this Shopping Centre. This centre is very notable in the Western area of Melbourne. --Bduke 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those smaller articles should be tagged with {{local}} for expansion or merging. As for it being "very notable", can you provide any references which prove this, aside from the mall's own website? --Elonka 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am far too busy to hunt up stuff, particularly since I think internet sources are not what we need. This Shopping Centre has become a focal point. Many shops have been attracted to the area close to the centre. The cinema is taking trade away from those in the traditional centres and may have forced some of those to close. The swimming pool in Footscray is not to be re-opened because one is going to be built at Highpoint. Its affect on the community of the western suburbs is large. I do not think Shopping Centres are necessarily notable. This one however is. Can any other Melburnians give some cites? --Bduke 05:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We have standards for incorporated economic entities, and this doesn't pass them. Neither does it satisfy notability on cultural grounds. As a company, and as a place, this article fails to establish its importance. 150 Google hits is exceedingly low for an important place. Note too that we have been getting a glut of non-notable shopping mall articles lately and stamping on this trend would benefit Wikipedia by eliminating any kind of precedent to keep non-notable malls under the pokemon test. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 150 was for news archives. There are 29,900 hits for "Highpoint shopping centre" on Google proper. —Pengo talk · contribs 04:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google hits alone do not verify notability, especially for something related to shopping. I was looking for a phone cable earlier today. Typing "Sony Ericsson USB cable" into Google got me over 60,000 hits.[28] But that doesn't mean we should have an individual Wikipedia article on that cable. --Elonka 04:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the correction. I still think that keeping malls that don't have coverage by independent sources would be a very bad precedent, though, so I still feel strongly that it should be deleted. The notability guidelines are as much to keep cruft out as to keep us from having articles that are hard or impossible to verify, and a lack of independent sources definitely indicates that it will be difficult to write anything of encyclopedic interest in this case. The article as written contains nothing of note that is worth saying so much that we need an article. Their official site does the job of saying what it is much better than this article does, so the only purpose the current article serves is to be a directory entry. Without indepenent coverage, this article just can't be more than a hollow profile with a traffic-driving link. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't keep every shopping center, but one with over 400 stores (if verifiable) is certainly notable. Also must be notable as a large business in the area with this type of income. AKAF 15:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. It is one of only 5 Super regional Shopping Centres in Victoria. See [[29]]. It is the third largest Shopping Centre in Victoria - see the local Council's Plan. Super Regionals have more than 85,000 sq m of lettable area. There are only 22 in Australia. this news item shows that a company was buying a 50% share of it for $621.2 million (Australian dollars). That link from a reputable newspaper gives the quote "which has approximately 400 specialty stores" which is at least close to verifying that number. This is a notable Shopping Centre but we need to find a reference to the effect it has had on the economy of the Western suburbs of Melbourne. --Bduke 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bduke, this is a particularly notable Melbourne shopping centre. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide a verifiable third-party reference, which confirms this notability? I reviewed Bduke's news item, but the only thing asserting notability was what appeared to be a self-promotional quote. --Elonka 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is'nt being a Super Regional Shopping Centre and the 3rd largest in Victoria good enough for you, or do you want to delete all articles on Shopping Centres? The sources for these are independant of the Shopping centre itself. Is'nt the Sydney Morning Herald and the local Council good enough? What criteria would you use to keep an article on a Shopping Centre in your neck of the woods? Australian Wikipedians are telling you it very large and notable. We have been there. Reporting on a place is hardly original research. I have been there frequently. It is 10 times larger than another Shopping Centre in Western Melbourne which has not been deleted although a "prod" was put it on in June. It is the largest shopping centre I have been in. I live in the area that has been affected by the building of it. --Bduke 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to existing article Highpoint Shopping Centre! Has no one noticed this? --Canley 08:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to duplicate article, but otherwise keep this perfectly notable shopping centre. I think it's amazing that people who have no clue of whether something is actually notable or not can so be so bloody minded in pushing for something to be deleted as being not notable. Rebecca 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the Highpoint Shopping Centre article does far more to assert notability and references so IMO this AfD is invalid to delete that article. If relisted in a new AfD, I would of course recommend Keep. I'll add the info and references about the purchase by GPT[30] and the spat with the Myer group[31]. --Canley 08:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I support Bduke's reasoning 100%, but if this article is a duplicate, then... it's a duplicate. Lankiveil 00:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • I now agree with a Redirect. I had totally missed the other article. Well done to User:Canley for spotting that. --Bduke 00:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of free MMORPGs[edit]

We already have a list of MMORPGs, which contains only those which have articles; this seems to exist primarily to gather and promote those which are not significant enough to have articles. Weblinks aboud, but sources are absent. It needs either aggressive cleanup or removal as redundant cruft. Guy 13:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup, contains many notable free MMORPGs, both free-with-pay-features, free-trial, and totally free. Many of those on the list do have their own articles. Maybe merge to list of MMORPGs, though the list is long enough already to be honest. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree this list needs cleanup, it's because of some poor presentation on the page, not because of any real problem. This list at least tries to organize things better than the alphabetical list of MMORPGs and should possibly be a model for that list to adopt. FrozenPurpleCube 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First merge into List of MMORPGs. Then change List of MMORPGs into a table, one which mentions the MMORPG's name, genre, developer, publisher, and whether or not the MMORPG is free. --TBCΦtalk? 14:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case the list should be sorted in a better way than alphabetical. Perhaps divide it into Free and Pay MMORPGs? Cost and genre are generally the two most obvious deciding factors, but I think cost is more useful than genre because of the disproportionate size of the various genres. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of MMORPGs.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kf4bdy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that should have been merge per Kf4bdy. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of MMORPGs, but in a separate section, then clean it up. (remove double-links and such) (Please respond on my talk page if you must)tinlv7
  • Keep. This page does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies on advocacy or advertising since the content does not benefit any anyone specifically. Also, FrozenPurpleCube is right; the List of MMORPG's article should follow this article's model. Merging this article with that one would completely defeat this article's purpose for existing. The list of MMORPG's article should be completely redesigned. Cuziyq 08:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which policy do you have in mind that states that advertising is OK as long as it doesn't "benefit anyone specifically"? The definition of spamming in WP:SPAM includes "self-promotion" as something that is unacceptable. — Haeleth Talk 13:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's going to be merged into List of MMORPG's, then that list also needs to be cleaned up and made easier to read, possibly into tables and alphabetical as suggested by TBC, as the point of merging articles is not to make them harder to access/read. Also, if it's going to stay here, this page also needs to be cleaned up. Either way, there's lots of work to be done, but if merging brings no benefits, why do it in the first place? Ddcc 16:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge entries that qualify for inclusion under the WP:SOFTWARE proposal into the main list; remove anything that's clearly vanity. — Haeleth Talk 13:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in which the lyrics are exclusively nonsensical words[edit]

This article fails WP:NOT L0b0t 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination. It's high time all this pop-culture trash got cleaned out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE per nom- this belongs in a pop culture trivia book JoshTyler 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC) . Josh.[reply]
  • Delete. Far too arbitrary and confused; makes no distinction between scat singing, be bop, nonsensical collections of valid words, musical settings of nonsense verse, and wordless chant (e.g. The Great Gig in the Sky). Plus, some of these do have content other than nonsense. Oh, and it's original research as well. Overall: unsalvageably unencyclopaedic. Guy 15:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting! --164.107.92.120 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incomplete original research lacking sources - this would make great information to look into, but it certainly has no place in an encyclopedia. wtfunkymonkey 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with the deletes here as it could never be complete and is probably unverifiable but I'm taking a copy as it's a creative and interesting idea for a list, just not good for an encyclopedia. Ac@osr 17:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopædic, unmaintainable and arbitrary list.--Húsönd 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Guy, this is too arbitrary to be rescued.-- danntm T C 18:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not interesting. Danny Lilithborne 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above - arbitrary4.18GB 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of it's encyclopedic worth, who gets to define what words are nonsensical? Is "fashEEzileh" nonsensical? How about "fo' shizzle", the non screaming form of that? Maybe "'hood" is nonsensical, too? -Amarkov babble 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - almost a keeper, but Amarkov's point is fatal to the article. -Kubigula (ave) 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure listcruft. We can't have list for everything a song could possibly be. And really, who cares? Lyrics are exclusively nonsensical words? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Open ended category and pretty indiscriminate, and some of the entries are just contradictory to the article's title. Something is wrong when "Oxygen" is on the list but not "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". Ohconfucius 13:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foo Fighters B-side Chronology[edit]

Listcruft Dotuniverce 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lists are actually quite useful! --164.107.92.120 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Why Foo Fighters? It is not explained. What is special about Foo Fighters b-sides? Not explained. Guy 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of articles for the singles themselves, I suggest a merge into Foo Fighters, either at the exact point where it points to this page or at the end of the discography section. Ac@osr 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Merge as listcruft, may deserve inclusion in the Foo Fighters article. Hello32020 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless listcruft, sorry anony. Danny Lilithborne 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the table at Foo Fighters#Singles as a new column to indicate what singles these songs are the B-sides of. Saying that a particular song is a B-side may be useful information but it helps to know what A-side song corresponds to it. --Metropolitan90 07:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length[edit]

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length.

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, WP:NOT, etc. It doesn't even conform to its own inclusion criteria--says no classical or instrumental tracks yet includes Phillip Glass and Jean Michel Jarre, says no live tracks but includes several by King Crimson and by others I'm sure. ergot 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is maintainable and encyclopedic: there can't be THAT many songs. The article should just define itself as a list of popular music songs, to make it clear that, say, operas don't count. Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this continues to be an embarrassment, it continues to fail to conform to its own inclusion criterea - it is just full of lists of 78 minute ambient drone fests and such like, not *SONGS*. It is not notable in any way for an ambient piece of instrumental music to be over 15 minutes in length. All previous votes for deletion with-held the executioner's noose on the ground the the article would be pruned of all this crap. It never has been, and the editors who voted for retention and pledged to clean it up reneged on their words.--feline1 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my continuing problem with this article is in its definition of "song" and the seemingly arbitrary choice of 15 minutes as a cut-off. The inherent musical snobbery against anything other than prog-rock (seemingly) make the article inherently POV and I don't see what's so special about being unable to stop playing after a period of time most would find reasonable has lapsed. I remain neutral on the article's fate as there is a signifiant number of contributors which suggests that it is considered useful by a large number of editors. Ac@osr 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of fact: the article does NOT give its own definition of a song - it simply refers to the pre-existing wikipedia song article. I would also submit that your argument about "a siginificant number of 'editors' find it useful" is fallacious - rather, a significant number of 14 year old boys keep adding their favourite doom metal songs to the list, etc etc - this is not "using" the article (as a source of info), it is just cluttering it with people's personal graffitti. PS - Ac@osr wiki page virtually reads like a fancruft manifesto. A vote which clearly contradicts the spirit of wikipedia policies is not a valid vote!--feline1 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you so upset about a neutral vote? Forget it, I've just been looking through the edit history of the page in question and I've worked it out....Ac@osr 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricky. The very-long-song is an encyclopaedic subject, in that it has an impact on airplay and so on. On the other hand, but it was common in the days of prog rock and some ambient and new age acts simply roll all the CD into a single track (a.k.a. "78 minute ambient drone fests" as so eloquently put above). Even though I do admire Brian Eno. Also the list seems to exclude classical songs and includes any popular guitar wank instrumental with vocal interludes, which displays systemic bias; how would one characterise, say, Peter Warlock's The Curlew (22:02 in one of my recordings)? What of songs whose duration varies per performance, as almost all classical music will? Are there secondary sources or are all the timings form record sleeves (i.e. original research)? What about songs without words? Do we count Mendelssohn's lieder ohne wörte? I'm strongly inclined to delete unless we can find a credible way of neutralising what is, put charitably, systemic bias (i.e. teenage fandom) and preferably pruning the list below its current one thousand entries (count 'em!) while still including well-known classical songs of unusual length. As to many editors proving usefulness, I disagree. It proves to me only that many bands' fans see yet another opportunity to add a reference to their band's name. Guy 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, arbitrary list.--Húsönd 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 15 minutes is an arbitrary number, making this an ill-defined list. Unless someone can redefine "long" and come up with alternative criteria that doesn't give this list thousands of entries, its not very useful. Wickethewok 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite amazingly convincing argument of 164.107.92.120. I pretty much agree with JzG's points, and err on the side of delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wickethewok -- lucasbfr talk 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per feline1 and JzG. Andrew Levine 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above 4.18GB 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent arguments above. I think the fatal flaw is the arbitrariness of 15 minutes. If the number had some particular significance within the music industry, it would be different. -Kubigula (ave) 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I just don't see how this can ever be a definable category - and it seems this article has struggled with that since inception. Despairing of any hope for identifiable standards, I must say delete. --TheOtherBob 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons that its pointless, discriminatory towards rock epics (not necessarily operas) with no lyrics, and the rule of 15 minutes minimum makes no sense. Woody1003 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd question that any "hard work" has gone into people's contributions to this list: it is not as if anyone has written any carefully thought out text for it. In fact, it's not as if they've bother to read the rules for inclusion either - rather, they've just stuck in some random long track from their fave band. If anything, I think the argument bites the other way: it is discouraging for responsible wiki-editors to continually have to try and clean up crap like this. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to delete stuff which doesn't fit the rules for inclusion, only to come along again a few weeks later and see some twit has put it back in again.--feline1 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus again. --Coredesat 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with more than one music video[edit]

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Mangojuicetalk 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists are useful and interesting! --164.107.92.120 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absurd. Canonical listcruft. Guy 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, arbitrary list.--Húsönd 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it is rare to go to the expense of making a second music video when one is already in the can; examples help show why it's been done. A2Kafir 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's plenty maintainable, unlike the innumerable "List of songs about love"-type lists, and it's only been a little more than two months since the last nom, so I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith here. Danny Lilithborne 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the number of songs this relates to is going to be limited, therefor the list is perfectly managable, also it survived a previous afd (I include default "keep"s as surviving btw), just two months ago. Jcuk 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those suggesting it here and last time round - this is a list which has very definite inclusion criteria and can/should be easily maintained. Additionally, as others have said, actually releasing two music videos for one song is an unusual thing to do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has no value. Arbusto 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above 4.18GB 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Bwithh 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree it is unusual to make a second clip; this is the only list of its type I've ever come across anywhere.Phil500 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list has no value to me personally. However, I think there is a non-arbitrary, sufficiently notable connection between the items on the list to be of interest to people beyond some tiny subculture. The list is also sufficiently defined in terminology and neither excessively broad nor excessively narrow. -Kubigula (ave) 05:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Phil500 and Kubigula comments. --Deenoe 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same reason as last time: "Since music videos often cost a bit to make, there's usually an interesting reason why a second version needed to be made, often due to controversy such as "Opportunities" by Pet Shop Boys and "Post Post Modern Man" by DEVO" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why? Why? Who Cares? More than one music video? List it on the song/artists page. We don't need a list for it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes a phone number[edit]

List of songs whose title includes a phone number was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-02. The result of the dicsussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number.

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination.L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)- Josh[reply]
  • DELETE (335383) per nom. Purely trivial name list. --Vossanova o< 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Abstain. There are too many unnominated categories in Category:Lists of songs with special titles to judge one but not the others. --Vossanova o< 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we are getting to those as well, have a little patience. L0b0t 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat what I wrote the last time around: The list's selection criteria are neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad. The list does not contain an inherent bias, and is not by its nature an original research magnet as some other lists are. Yes, this is slanted towards people who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to trivia quiz questions. But so are the thirty-five articles listed at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. And it is conceivable that a person who knew of one song whose title includes a telephone number would want to know whether there were others. Keep. Uncle G 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Again I must stress, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial lists. ALL these lists need to go. Start a fansite, start a wiki, keep this cruft out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists are useful and interesting! --164.107.92.120 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there being no encyclopaedic topic songs whose title includes a phone number, this is an arbitrary list. Guy 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no encyclopaedia topic previous occupations of United States Presidents, yet you'll have a hard time making a case that this is grounds for deletion of List of United States Presidents by previous occupation. That a standalone list does not have another article for it to be paired up with is not a reason for not having the standalone list, and does not make a list arbitrary. Standalone list articles have introductory sections for a reason, after all.

      The reasons for not having lists are whether the list's selection criteria are either excessively narrow or excessively broad, whether the list is original research, whether the list is unverifiable, and whether the list is inherently non-neutral. We addressed those concerns a year ago, in the first AFD discussion. My rationale from that discussion is repeated above. Nothing has changed. Uncle G 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1-800-DELETE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of songs whose title includes a phone number.--Húsönd 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's self-contradictory to say that something is indiscriminate and then to give its quite precise discrimination criterion in the same breath. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is not a handy synonym for "I want this deleted.". This list is not one of the topics given at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Uncle G 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respectfully disagree, cannot follow your self-contradictory point. The fact that lists such as this are not specifically mentioned in the topics given at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information does not mean that it doesn't apply here. I don't just stick to those accurate topics, I prefer to follow the statement above them - "something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". And that statement, I believe, applies here.--Húsönd 19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That statement is simple a restatement of our "verifiability, not truth" maxim. If you are saying that it applies, then please explain, in light of things like this, this, this, this, and even specific information like this and this, how this article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no, no. Please do not attempt to manipulate my positions. Cruft is one thing, verifiability is another thing. I do not agree with your immediate association. In fact, I think that my position was quite plain and not really atypical, I do not understand why is this dispute arising. :-/ --Húsönd 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The only person who is manipulating your position is you. When it is pointed out that list of things that Wikipedia not in the section of WP:NOT that you refer to does not cover topics such as these you change your position to being that the article falls foul of a sentence at the beginning of that section. When it is pointed out that that sentence is a simple restatement of our "verifiability, not truth" maxim, and that the article is verifiable from sources such as the aforemented and others, you are now changing your position again. Your position is repeatedly changing, by the way, because you don't have a solid hook in our policies and guidelines to hang it off. And the reason for that is because the article subject doesn't fall foul of them. As I explained above, the issues of verifiability, original research, neutrality, and whether the scope of the list was either excessively narrow or excessively broad, were all discussed last year. Nothing has changed, and the article subject doesn't fall foul of any of them. Uncle G 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I reject your argumentation. It is neither sound nor plausible. I still see no reason for keeping this and I am slightly displeased by your particular method to discredit my stance. I believe that I still have the right to state my positions without having them entangled with arguments that attempt to make them sound awkward. I reiterate my position for deletion.--Húsönd 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They still have the Glenn Miller song as their music on hold at the Pennsylvania Hotel. Interesting article, encyclopedic, sourced, not at all random collection. There are a finite number of such songs, and it is pretty easy to determine whether or not one belongs, but it would be hard to find them without such an article. Edison 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list actually contains interesting annotations and notes at the end. Also, I agree with Uncle G that the scope is not unduly arbitrary, because any reasonable editor can figure out whether a song has a phone number in it or not.-- danntm T C 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the endless parade of stuff like "Lists of songs about missing my boo", the criterion is rare enough for a fixed number of songs to match. Danny Lilithborne 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jcuk 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete - encyclopedia-esq???? NO 4.18GB 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no value whatsoever. Arbusto 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kudos to UncleG for his resolve - you sold me. The list has no value to me, but my personal interest in it is not especially relevent. The real question is whether there is a sufficiently notable connection between the items on the list to be of interest to people beyond some tiny subculture. The comments above plus the citations of similar lists from UncleG suggest that there is sufficient interest. The list then also meets the secondary issues of being sufficiently defined, neither excessively broad nor excessively narrow, etc. -Kubigula (ave) 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all lists of X with unassociated unencyclopedic attribute Y. There is nothing notable about the attribute of having a phone number in a title. MLA 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely useless. Listcruft. Who cares? Ect. I agree that maybe someone should set up their own wiki and have lists of songs with whatever there. Will this be important in 10 years? Is this important now? No. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about hair[edit]

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination.L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Lists are useful and interesting! All these efforts to delete lists, which a large number of users apparently like and spend time creating is alienating many Wikipedians and will end up diminishing the overall quality of Wikipedia. --164.107.92.120 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there being no encyclopaedic topic songs about hair, this list is arbitrary and an indiscriminate collection of information. Guy 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy.--Húsönd 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very the opposite of useful and interesting and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. As for alienating anonymous users, that's a chance I'm willing to take. Danny Lilithborne 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ummmm anons have not been able to create articles for some time, so you wont alienate them by deleting an article that wasn't created by one. Also, the fact that people are willing to risk alienating anyone is extremely disturbing. Much better to say this is how we do it here, and this is why. Jcuk 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above 4.18GB 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as all the other ones. Listcruft, who cares, ect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat[edit]

I encountered this page today and was shocked: it is a completely unsourced article, complete with a POV list, including living people. I'm not sure what to do with it, but I see little redeeming value in this. I'm not entirely sure, so feel free to disagree. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the article but remove the list. The term "Military Brat" seems to be commonly used, but the list of military brats and "possible" military brats is undeniably POV. --TBCΦtalk? 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my question for Dark below. How is this list any different from those lists of people who are left-handed? Catholic? Eagle Scouts? Personally, I don't like these lists, but if Wikipedia allows list of famous people, why does this one pose a POV problem when others do not? Also, all but one of the people left on the list can be confirmed as a Military Brat. I left one because her biography's sound like a person who could have been a military brat, and somebody obviously added her thinking she was.Balloonman 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many people consider the word "brat" to be a rather crude slur. It isn't meant to be so here, but if you're not familiar with the history of the word it's a fair assumption. --Charlene 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... but if the criticism comes from a lack of understanding of the term, then I have to ask, does TBC still feel that the list is POV? I'm asking this because this is a work in progress, and I can't address the concern if the concern is based upon an incorrect understanding of the term. Does he say that it is "undeniably POV" because he sees the "Brat" and doesn't understand the meaning? Or is there another reason that I am missing that makes this list different from other lists of famous people? It also raises questions about the need to have this AfD if the original proposer did so failing to understand the term.Balloonman 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said that I thought the term had some sort of negative connotation. Anyhow, yes, I do feel the list is still POV, mainly because the list contains numerous "possible" military brats, meaning that the writer is only assuming the person is a "military brat". --TBCΦtalk? 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't see how POV comes up, as there is no bias in saying they are possible military brats. In fact, given the comments afterwards, I'd say "Unknown Branch of service" would be a better title. But really, I think your criticsm is off-target. That problem isn't POV at all. FrozenPurpleCube 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the ONE person whose status was unconfirmed. AS I mentioned above, all of the others (in that section) are known to be military brats, just not the branch of service. If you hit "Edit page" on your link you would see that all but one had comments associated with them stating that their status as a military brat was confirmed. In subsequent edits, these comments were brought to the main user page to be visible. Balloonman 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Manticore's comment, when the heading says "status unconfirmed", it gives me an impression that the author of the page doesn't know if the person is still in the army or not, thus POV. As for Ballonman's comment, please realize that when I first commented none of the "possible" military brats were confirmed.--TBCΦtalk? 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then perhaps that's something to change yourself to make more clear, or bring up on the article's Talk page. I can understand your problem, but it's not a deletion problem, it's a content-problem. They are different things. In this case, the thing to do is seek out confirmation/refutation. I don't much care whether it's left there or not pending that action, since it's not derogatory in any way, but if you do, move it to the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content related problems can and often do lead to the deletion of an article, especially if the content of said article violates WP:N, WP:OR, WP:POV, or WP:RS. Either way though, I voted to keep this article, so why are we debating my above comments?--TBCΦtalk? 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we're discussing something because you brought it up. Now I would say this is clearly a better choice for the article's talk page, but you didn't bring it up there, so it gets discussed here. And while sometimes content does merit deletion of an article, it doesn't always. Too many people jump to deletion when other choices are much better. It's quite a bother really. And in response to your question below, we don't need a list of EVERY person. However, some folks like to see examples, so providing a few people is worth doing. Since the backgrounds of many people are verifiable, and that often includes the circumstances of their childhood, it's perfectly reasonable to put that information in this article. FrozenPurpleCube 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up because AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Regardless, I'm fine with a few examples (perhaps nine or ten), but having over fourty is unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bring it up on the article's talk page. There's actually a discussion there already on this. Chime in on it! FrozenPurpleCube 01:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why do we need a list of every person that a slang (albeit well known) term applies to? For example, grease monkey is a notable slang term for a mechanic, but that doesn't mean we should include every notable mechanic, real or fictional, within the article.--TBCΦtalk? 04:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need lists of famous Baptist? Catholics? Left-handers? Personally, I don't like these lists, but the reason why one would keep it here is because [Military Brat] isn't simply a slang term. [Military Brat]s are people who have been affected by who/what they are. Military Brat is used to indicate one who has been affect by a particular culture.Balloonman 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Military Brats" is, and has always been, a slang term. Whether or not a person is effected by the term does not make it any more formal. For example, ethnic slurs have often effected millions of lives, yet does it mean we should list many of the notable people that they apply to?--TBCΦtalk? 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnic Slurs are slurs, not a description of a culture or sociological group of people. Military Brat is a term used to describe a unique identifiable researched culture. To call a person an ethnic slur does not describe describe the socio-economic-cultural influences that have contributed to who that person is. It says more about the person using the slur. Psychologist and sociologist do not study ethnic slurs, they study the population that the slurs represent. Military brat does tell you about the person it is used to describe. To know that somebody is a military brat tells you something about that person's upbringing and what made that person who he/she is. So your comparison to an ethnic slur is a strawman agrument. I am still waiting for somebody to give me a reasonable rationale as to why a list of famous military brats is less appropriate than famous left-handed people! Or any one of the other lists on Wikipedia. I don't care for lists, but I'm still waiting for somebody to give a rataional why this list is worse than left handers!Balloonman 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated above, slangs should not include lists of people that apply to the term. If you really wanted to have a list of notable children with parents in the military, then why not create List of children with parents in the military?--TBCΦtalk? 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the term Military brat is used mainly in the US and the UK and not commonly in other parts of the world, thus using the term to classify children with parents from other countries in the military is POV.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term may be used primarily in the US/Canada/Britian, but the phenomena is universal. Military Brat is not merely a slang term used to describe children of military personell, but rather the effects of growing up in a military community.Balloonman 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean-up There are some poorly written parts in this article, but I don't see it as deletion material. It is a valid concept, and a commonly used phrase. Better than civilian dependents anyway. BLP problems don't really apply, since there's nothing inherently pejorative about being a military brat. POV? I'm afraid I don't see how, except for being US-centric, but that's hardly a surprise. Worldwide perspective is hard when you're editors are condensd into a small area. At the least though, keeping some examples is a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appear to be few or no sources for any of the "examples" of military brats, or even the definition itself. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then mark the page as unsourced. Doesn't mean it's not unsourceable. I found at least one book with the title as "Military Brats" and a google scholar search coms up with more [32]. Seriously, this article might be sketchy, but it's certainly improvable. As for the examples, um, check their bios on Wikipedia. I checked a dozen. Some may be iffy on the whether or not they were a military brat, but most of their Wikipedia articles do mention a military background. The only exception I found was Mark Hamill, and well, [33] confirms it, so not a problem in his case. Probably needs to be added to his Wikipedia article at that. I can't attest to the others, but I suggest the article's talk page as a place to bring it up instead of AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:TBC. Auto movil 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Cleanup - The article needs citations and cleanup, but other than that is is fine. I like the lists, but if they can't be sourced they gotta go. -bobby 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am currently working on updating this article---see how it looked yesterday and you would be truly shocked!
As for the "POV list." The list of "Unknown" brats was MUCH longer. I'm not a big fan of lists, but having said that, you can find list of famous people in almost every category: List of famous left-handed people,List of Eagle Scouts, List of Baptists, or List of famous tuberculosis victims. If a list, by default is POV, then all of these lists have to be deleted. Many of them are not well cited. When I was working on it last night I eliminated a number of people I couldn't confirm and this has been a subject of discussion on the articles talk page. But is not worthy of deleting the article on this principle. I debated adding links to the one's I found, but chose not to for consistency. (This section and the one on pop culture are my two least favorite sections.)
Being left-handed is a fact. Being an eagle scout is a fact. Being a "brat" is an opinion. —Dark Shikari talk/contribs 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being a military brat is a fact too... one either has a military parent or one doesn't. The article quoting Admiral Blair, Admiral Blair says, There’s a standard term for the military child: "Brat." The Navy also uses the term "Junior," but "Brat" seems to cut across all the services. While it sounds pejorative, it’s actually a term of great affection. [34] Military brat is not synonymous with Brat. Mary Edwards Wertsch, author of "Military Brats: Legacies of Childhood inside the fortress" says that brats have such values as idealism, antiracisism, loyalty, patriotism and honesty. These phrases would not be used if brat was derogatory. ("Military brats are a special breed" by Rudi Williams American Forces Press Services.)
I think I just realized something, are you associating the term Military Brat with the term Brat? If so, I understand better your concern. In which case, it is completely unjustified as it does not represent what the term Military Brat means. Military Brat is not in any way derogatory. IN fact, most brats embrace the term. The two terms are not interchangeable, being a military brat is a point of fact, not opinion.Balloonman 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you a question, is the reason why you think the "POV List" is POV because you believe that it is a judgement on the people cited? That by calling "Mark Hammill" a military brat we are evaluating him in some derogatory manner as compared to stating a simple fact? Are you interpretting the list as "Mark Hammill is a spoiled brat" as compared to "Mark Hammill's father was in the military?" If so, then your concern about the "POV list" has been addressed. It is not a judgement on the individuals, but rather a statement of fact. Did the person listed grow up as a military brat? Balloonman 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above on it being POV.--TBCΦtalk? 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the statement, There appear to be few or no sources for ... even the definition itself.' Do a quick search through wikipedia articles and I doubt if you will find many that cite sources for the definition itself. The only time you might find a citation is the use of an usual term/phrase. The term military brat is not an unusual term that needs special sources to define---ask ANY military brat what that means and they will give you a similar definition. This is common knowledge.
Reading Dark's comments about "Brat" being an opinion, I think he said, "even the definition itself" is in reference to the "POV list." I think he was looking for a definition as to why these people were "Brats" not realizing that "Brats" is a term used positively in reference to military dependents.Balloonman 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for citations---no problem, those can be added without much though---but that was my next step in improving the article anyway... I just couldn't handle what was there older version of military bratBalloonman 16:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if you can remove the POV edits. SunStar Net 16:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is not WP:OR is a dicdef. Guy 16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guy can you elaborate on why you think this is Original Research? Military Brat's are a subject that has a fair amount of research behind it. I can undestand the POV arguments (as this is a work in progress) but if I'm going to address your concern when I work on it, I need to better understand your concern.Balloonman 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there are no citations or sources from credible resources, then most users will assume that an article might be original research.--TBCΦtalk? 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just hit the random article feature 10 times. I came up 0-10 for articles that had a single citation! (Three were labeled stubs.) Are all of those original research? Just because the redaction that was read didn't have any citations doesn't mean that it is original research. Plus, the contributions to this last night should alieve that concern.Balloonman 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Clean up and make NPOV and it would be a stronger keep. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: rather an extreme case of original research. Answer to question above: the sections "School Life", "Frequent and Unexpected Moves", "Brats impact Military Member's Careers", "Patriotism" are extreme original research/personal essays, absolutely unsourced, absolutely unencyclopedic. Ekjon Lok 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, School life, Frequent and Unexpect moves, impact on Military Member's careers may be unsourced, but they are hardly "extreme" original research. I wouldn't even say it's original research. If you want sources try: [35] or [36]. All these positions are well-represented in terms of study and reporting on them. Even Patriotism is documented elsewhere. Yes, this article may be poorly written, but your comments are an exaggeration. FrozenPurpleCube 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think most of it is original research. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, a secondary source; we are supposed to summarize and report in a neutral manner on what is written in reputable primary sources. All those sections do not cite any primary sources (and I frankly doubt you can find any neutral, respectable sources), so it very much looks like original research, or at least private opinion by the original contributor (which is also unacceptable by encyclopedic standards). I very much urge everyone to stand back and reflect, for a moment, whether this information is really appropriate for a respectable general-knowledge encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia aspires to be. Ekjon Lok 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, to me, it's an unquestioned "Yes, of course Wikipedia should have information on this subject" as Military brats are a distinct population, in fact, the whole problem of civilian depedents is a real issue of substantive importance, and it is unique enough to warrant its own article. And I'm sorry, but there is a fair amount of scientific study on them. Here's an example: [37]. That certainly seems reputable to me. The US Gov't also does reports. See page 28 of this document [38] for a description of what the services do. I'm sure the GAO has more, but they have so much, it's hard to find things sometimes. But they certainly meet the criteria of a neutral, respectable source. There's probably more from other country's militaries, and having that would be important, but I must admit ignorance of that. I find your perspective on this article difficult to comprehend. I can understand saying this article isn't great, and needs work, but your arguments for deletion just don't make sense to me. Problems perhaps, but rectifiable ones. Why is this article any different than an article on female body shape or nuclear family.
I can -- just possibly -- agree with the solution proposed by the author of the comment just below: slash the article to a paragraph or so, and build up from that using actual sources. (Provided you can find some valuable primary sources, that is.) As the comment below says, "delete all content -- keep the title". Ekjon Lok 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as this article just isn't bad enough that it needs that kind of action. There are times that is a good idea, but in this case, it simply is not necessary. It can be easily fixed a stage at a time. And seriously, there are sources, even if you don't know about them. Still, if you want, go to the talk page, bring up your ideas there. FrozenPurpleCube 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wow what a terrible article in its current state - so full of POV and OR. The listcruft needs to be trimmed down as well (possibly to zero). However, all excessive harshness aside, "Military brat" is a term thats definitely widely used (do a title search on Amazon.com). Recommend after the AFD, the closing admin slashes the article down to a paragraph or so (or message me, I'll do it) and building it up from there using some actual sources. Pretty much delete all the content, but keep the title. Wickethewok 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remove the list of military brats, maybe create a category for them instead. Category:Military brats for example. TJ Spyke 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't like lists of people, but before we get rid of the list, I want somebody to explain to me how a list of military brats is less acceptable than a list of famous left-handed people? Or Eagle Scout? Or people who suffered TB? Somebody (or multiple somebodies) took a lot of time to compile the list and without sound justification, I'm reluctant to get rid of it. I am not trying to be belligerent, but rather understand what the criticism is. I honestly do not see how a list of known Brats is a problem when the other lists are not. Balloonman 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cbrown1023 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has potential and people who are willing to bring it more in line with WP standards.Giddytrace 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What problems do you see with this article? Lack of sources, non-neutral point of view, writing that needs editing? When an article lacks sources, add a template asking for sources. When the point of view is not neutral, edit it to make it neutral. When an article needs cleanup, request cleanup. When an article lists appropriate examples, praise it for listing examples. When an article lists incorrect or questionable examples, remove or question them. Please let editors spend their time improving articles without forcing them to defend the existence of the article. Fg2 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-recognized concept. I expect that this article will be improved as time goes on. --Metropolitan90 07:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Well, I've been working on this page for about 5 hours now. It's 2:30 a.m. so I'm going to bed. I ask you to look at the article as it stood two days ago and compare it to what was proposed for deletion. Then compare that to what now exists. This is a work in progress. I posted to the Wiki Help Desk asking for | help/advice because I knew it needed help---but there was only so much I could do in one night. As a person who has just recently started to become active on Wikipedia, this has been a very disillusioning process. I saw an article that was in desperate need of improvement and that has personal meaning to me. Start to work on said article. I ask for help/advice and instead of spending time improving said article, I have to defend it here. Yeah, I know that most people are saying keep, but that doesn't alleviate the frustration. BTW, the changes made tonight will be the last one's I make for a few days---I'll be travelling the rest of this week. But to be honest, I may or may not resume this endeavor when I return. Does the article still need help? Yes. I hold no illusions that it is finalized (I didn't even proof my own text), but I don't get paid by wikipedia to fix poorly written articles or put up with this. Again, as an essential newbie, this has turned me off of wikipedia somewhat.Balloonman 10:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Three other things to note. First, I have ordered two books from Inter Library Loan on the subject. Those will probably take a few weeks to arrive (long after this AfD is over.) Second, there are few other articles out there that I think need a lot of work. What can I do to prevent those articles from being nominated for deletion while enhancing them? This one most likely came to Dark's attention via the help desk or recent changes. If I start working on an existing article I don't want to have to defend it in an unfinished status. How does one mark a work in progress?Balloonman 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Qwerty1234 12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it could use some work, specifically the lists, but it is a real thing --Awiseman 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was an interesting read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.72.232 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue to clean up, this can and should be much more than a dictionary definition. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 4 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - indiscriminate list, no socking please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional battles[edit]

Since List of fictional military operations and List of fictional wars are currently up for Afd1 with a majority of delete votes, I decided to put this one back up for Afd to be consistent. --Vossanova o< 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination, discussion and result is here:

The other deletion discussions mentioned above are here and here. Carcharoth 15:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete provided someone checks that all the linked articles are in Category:Fictional battles. Carcharoth 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I found this article to be especially useful and interesting. --164.107.92.120 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having looked through it. The Blade Runner ones, for example, are essentially nonsense, chunks of the list is redlinks we really don't need filled, and at least some of it is original research, in that the sources do not appear to use the term Battle of foo. Also, the bar for inclusion is too low - there are battles listed (thanksfully without links yet) which are contained in fiction which is barely known, rubbing shoulders with the Lord of the Rings. Oh, and lumping Blade Runner and Soldier together and saying they were written by David Peoples is also a stretch, since Blade Runner is from a book by Philip K Dick (as any fule kno) and the two are not truly a pair; to include Peoples' name looks like fandom. Guy 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per my reasoning on the List of fictional wars AfD: Original research, unmaintainable, and unencyclopedic. Most fictional works (especially those in the science fiction and fantasy genre) have some sort of war or conflict, thus listing all of them would be unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how the battles exist independently of the books, movies, songs, video games, etc in which they are mentioned. How can they really be encyclopedic? Edison 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Eldarone 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fictional Military Battles is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. Also, this list is relavent due to the imporantce of the Military Battles to the plot of many stories. Instead of creating many useless pages that just deals with the oneoperation, a single list will be able to maintian any and all plot relevant operations. --Eldarone 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per TBC. Wickethewok 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably could be split up better, and more appropriately organized, and some decent criteria would be a nice thing, but it's not inherently a problem, any more than any other list. And it's organized by subject. I do think there's too many silly red-links, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comprehensive list would be excessively long/unwieldy. Bwithh 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comprehensive list would not be excessively long/unwieldy. --64.12.116.203 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acceptable list providing legitimate information. -- Necrothesp 02:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are probably tens of thousands of fictional battles. Who decides which get in? We obviously can't have a list with ten thousand battles on it, but as the Wheel of Time entry shows, it's not being limited to battles which have their own article. So who decides? -Amarkov babble 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. There's nothing wrong with having such an article, but it really is redundant with the category referring to the same stuff. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Where else will you find such a survey? (As always, this is not a rhetorical question.) <KF> 18:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the answer is "nowhere", as you are implying it to be, how are readers to verify this article? Uncle G 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of sources out there which can serve as references for this excellent article!--164.107.92.120 01:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article? It is an incomplete list that doesn't tell the reader why this sort of thing is needed. If anyone can come up with a reason for compiling such a list, fine. The normal reason is to enable comparisons to be made between items on a list, such as List of rivers by length. What comparisons can be made between the battles in different fictional worlds that can be separated from the more logical idea of overall comparisons of the fictional worlds and authors? Carcharoth 10:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually like the idea of this list, but it's simply not sufficiently defined in terminology and thus excessively broad. A comprehensive list would probably include hundreds of thousands of entries from books, games, movies, songs etc. -Kubigula (ave) 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then all we need to do is define the list even more. If you wish, you can even suggest how the list should be limited more. For one thing, the battles must be significant to the main body of fiction could be a good start. --Eldarone 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that before I voted. However, I couldn't think of a way to limit the list without making it too crufty. A list of fictional battles in classic literature might be manageable, but I don't think that's what the keepers of this list find interesting. Once you open up the list to all fiction, it becomes unmanageable. It's an interesting concept for a list, but I don't see a way to make it encyclopedic. -Kubigula (ave) 02:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a *Keeparooni! the first time some goof nominated it for deletion, which by the way all of this deletion is really starting to diminish Wikipedia and needs to stop . . . :(--205.188.116.197 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That... entirely fails to give a reason to keep. -Amarkov babble 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the hell is the point in having articles to the battles themselves, but no simple way to access them. Leaving the list gives the articles more exposure anyway and makes it easier for readers. Just leave it in - 130.130.37.6 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can get to the articles about the battles from the general subject articles. Do you really think that people care about having a list of EVERY fictional battle? -Amarkov babble 03:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It dosn't have to every fictional battle, just ones that have signifcance to the main body of the work. Besides, many general articles don't have list of battles for their work. --Eldarone 03:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find these kinds of lists helpful for categorizing information and I believe that fictional battles are prominent enough of a topic to warrant being *Kept on Wikipedia. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing. That is what categories are for. Categories are fine for organizing large amounts of information related only by one thing, such as being a fictional battle. Lists are not. -Amarkov babble 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, not every series is going to have a seperate article on each battle. Most are going to have a subsection of a larger article, and categories sometimes don't list every plot or background imporatant battle --Eldarone 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And remind us again what the non-trivial point is of a long list of lots of fictional battles? Carcharoth 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience and attrativeness to fans of these works of fiction. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't hold up as an argument at all. Why would a fan of Firefly want to know about the fictional battles in Animal Farm? Surely a fan of one work of fiction would want to read about the battles therein in an article on that work of fiction (or in the case of Tolkien fans, in works devoted to that kind of thing). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. I am a fan of both Firefly and Animal Farm and I like having a list like this for comparative purposes even. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. I said, "Why would a fan of X what to read about fictional battles in Y?", not "Why would a fan of X and Y want to read about fictional battles in both?" I also don't see what "comparative purposes" this list can serve - that there are more battles in Harry Turtledove's Timeline-191 than in Animal Farm? Well, paint me blue and call me Charlie. I never would've guessed that. Further, just remember that you liking or disliking an article has very little bearing on matters. I wouldn't mind seeing an article on myself here, but that doesn't mean that one should exist. Likewise, there are lots of articles I'd prefer didn't exist, but unless there's a better reason than that, it doesn't count. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to disagree. It's because of articles that I and others "like" that we come to Wikipedia. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why you come here, I didn't say otherwise. What I did say, though, is that there are rules, guidelines and policies which govern what's actually included here, and "Someone likes it" isn't one of them. Like I said above, I'd like it very much if I had an article here, and one day I might, but that doesn't mean I need one now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BigHaz. This seems to be part of the problem. To be blunt, you (and others) need to understand what Wikipedia is about, not turn Wikipedia into a free-hosting site for things "you like". Carcharoth 13:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Le Grand Roi: well, fine, make a copy of the list. But the community, backed by policies, seems to be deciding that Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. Please understand that Wikipedia is not meant to cover everything. A lot, yes, but not every conceivable trivial list. Again, I point you to List of rivers by length as an example of a well-designed list. Better to have a series of inter-connected lists, than one long, indiscriminate list. By all means, keep a copy of this list offline, and redesign it into a series of navboxes between different areas of Wikipedia (such as Template:Campaignbox_War_of_the_Ring), but in this format, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Carcharoth 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually looks like a consensus has not been reached. I have no qualms against improving this article, which I think is always a good idea, but the concept is sound and so if anything should be tagged with a please improve comment rather than just outright deleting it, especially as some took the time and effort to start with probably the right intentions in mind. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue has now been confused by sockpuppeting and needs further investigation. Carcharoth 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Fictional battles are significant and a list like this is convenient for web users who may be on a time schedule. --172.148.28.36 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those reasons are grounds for a speedy keep. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quote - "web users who may be on a time schedule"? Since when does Wikipedia cater for web users who may be on a time schedule? Carcharoth 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I think we should accomodate people who look for convenience, hence my Keep vote. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By being an online encyclopedia, we do precisely that. We don't need to do it by serving up a mishmash of things which are only related by being fictional and (in the broadest possible sense) a battle. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, not every anonymous user posting here is me and any that are are unintentional. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, however the two anonymous users I have identified as you have both edited your Talk page in the same manner you do when you log in. One of them was also asked a question to which you responded when logged in, which rather cliches the deal in lieu of an IP check which I of course can't do. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to worry about. I use many public computers, so who knows who uses the same IPs after me. Take care, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone claimed this, there would be no way to prevent abusive sockpuppetry. In this case, I would suggest discounting votes by IP addresses. These votes are now of questionable authenticity because of your statement: "I use many public computers, so who knows who uses the same IPs after me.". Carcharoth 14:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that. If I were using a public computer, I'd be stunned if the person who used it after me edited my userpage in much the same way I did. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a sensible fictional subject to organize into a list, and it's sensibly divided by fictional source rather than indiscriminately merged. The original research problems mentioned above are corrected by editing, annotating, and sourcing the list, and as this list expands and becomes too unwieldy, subsections can be split off into other lists with this as the organizing parent. The list (or sublists that it organizes) can also mention battles that aren't worthy of independent treatment, and redlink articles that should exist. Postdlf 04:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having battles in Tolkien and Turtledove rubbing shoulders with the "Battle(s) of Springfield" from the Simpsons is proof that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. At most, some of these universes might merit their own "List of battles in X" list, but aside from that it should go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That issue would be solved by removing any fictional depictions that don't correspond to the real-world subject as described in the battle article. Postdlf 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the particular cases I've cited. Per the definition at that article, all three wouldn't get removed. My point, though, is that even with a definition like that, we're looking at an indiscriminate collection of information - how many works of fiction are there (I note sardonically that even Scientological belief is included as a work of fiction, which Scientologists would have fits about)? How many works of fiction contain a battle? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. Do we want any list which can grow indefinitely? Duja► 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdisa Agasi[edit]

Non-notable biographical. Was speedied when all it said was "... is a person" and the author removed this tag and added alot more information which at least asserted some kind of notability. Non-notable, nevertheless Bubba hotep 15:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating related page, Galang Bintang, for same reason. Bubba hotep 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per CSD:A7. Might make sense to include Galang Bintang as well for the same reasons. OBM | blah blah blah 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - generally, a student newspaper is not notable, and there are no sources being cited. -- Whpq 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7 and not being notable, along with there being no sources. Hello32020 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. Cbrown1023 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both per above, for lack of notability and lack of reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7, and both marked as such. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Gray[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources. Contested prod. MER-C 13:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kristian Hägglund My sources are as follows: [39] and [40] the second source is in finnish. I´m going to contact my friend Nicklas Nyman (who is the singer of the band) about the copyright issue shortly. I asked permission by him and i´ve got a mail to proove it but it´s in swedish. They have a hit in Finland wich is 1;st on Nrj´s top 10 radio list NRJ top 10 list. --Hegge91 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and/or vanity page.--MonkBirdDuke 03:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please do not use the word vanity it is thought of as rude to some. (per WP:SPEEDY) Cbrown1023 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability issue 4.18GB 01:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't quite meet the notability criteria. It might have a place on the relevent foreign language Wiki, but that's up to the editors over there. -bobby 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Ok. After further review, it seems the band qualifies for notability by: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." After some research, it appears the station NRJ has a weekly audience of 65,000 (slightly greater than 1% of the population) which in my mind qualifies it as a national station. Since one of the band's songs reached the top 10 list (source already cited) I have to assume that they were featured in the rotation. I'm not sure if they meet any of the other criteria mentioned in TruthbringerToronto's below comment, but they only need the one to remain on Wikipedia. -bobby 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.Keep Article has improved and now displays the notability of the subject. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the record reviews count as "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media", which is enough to say "keep". The NRJ Top 10 might mean that the band also passes "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" (if NRJ is a network) or "has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country." (if the NRJ chart counts as a national music chart, and if Finland qualifies as medium-sized) Is NJR a radio network? Is there a national chart service other than that of individual radio stations in Finland? Have they toured internationally? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. They seem to have made "their first international appearance" in Romania [41] with Amorphis and HIM in July. NRJ is a national network and has a weekly reach of 750,000 [42]. Prolog 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even as a Finn, I've never heard of the band, but I don't belong to the target audience and they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. One of their singles also went to number three in Finland [43], although disappeared after that. Prolog 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability assessed. Cbrown1023 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, verifiable. Tulkolahten 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azian Vance[edit]

This is not a computer game character, but a passing reference to a character in a computer game. You cannot expand this substub any further. Note just how the article says we pretty much know nothing about her. - Hahnchen 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep --164.107.92.120 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per 164.107.92.120 -- 172.207.21.188 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That doesn't really make sense. -bobby 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NN character. Anytime "apparently" is used to describe the subject of an article, it should raise a red flag. Caknuck 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeDelete - any non speculative info to the article for the daughter or father. It has been pointed out that the entire article is speculative. The only relevant fact is about her relationship to two in game characters. This is already documented in several other articles. We don't need a stand alone article to repeat it. -bobby 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) -bobby 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sincce the data is apparently all speculative. Guy 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Fair enough; after further review I've changed my above suggestion. -bobby 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly non-notable gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Cbrown1023 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* keeping the article will do no harm to the encyclopedia, and can potentially benefit it in the near future. Cannibalicious! 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above is User:Cannibalicious!'s 3rd edit. --Alan Au 09:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a better place to put this content. Unfortunately, there's no "minor characters in the Half-Life universe" article, nor am I convinced that one should be created. --Alan Au 09:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as mentioned, any solid information is already referred to in other articles, and the character is not actually present in-game. Grim Revenant 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is so little to write about her, and nothing in this article that can be merged, delete. She's too obscure of a character to merit her own article. When details about her are officially expanded, I'll reconsider. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limit in the periodical system of elements[edit]

Looks like original research to me. Has email address at end where author seeks comments. NawlinWiki 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research or essays:
"The objective of this study is to define the possible amount of chemical elements with the concrete atom mass and the ordinal number in the Periodical System up to the last one."
From the above passage, this is clearly an essay detailing the author's original research. It might be a wonderful addition to a related mag or a good topic for a presentation, but it is not for Wikipedia. -bobby 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating WP:NOR -- Whpq 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research.--Húsönd 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: (1) obvious original research. (2) the text references something as "[5]", and later "fig. 3b", which suggests that the whole text is lifted from some larger publication, which raises a suspicion of copyvio. Ekjon Lok 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Ekjon Lok. Danny Lilithborne 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If this is not a copyright violation then it is, literally, original research. Cardamon 08:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan's Creek[edit]

Non-notable show, can find no reliable sources to verify this even exists. CSD and prod removed by anon IP Wildthing61476 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The repeated AfD tag removals and the picture of the "cast" certianly do not help this article's cause. Wildthing61476 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears do be a hoax. Either that or it's one of the millions of user created videos on youTube. Either way it needs to be deleted. I marked the actual article as possibly false to be on the safe side. -bobby 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. There are no sources provided, nor are any evident through googling. -- Whpq 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a hoax. Hello32020 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no links supplied except to a 9-member my space page, either a hoax or someone's pet project. As a general rule, promotional photos don't tend to suffer from red-eye <.< QuagmireDog 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per picture of the cast :D -- lucasbfr talk 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. James' Anglican Church (Windsor)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of churches Catchpole 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article does not assert notability and hance qualifies for speedy deletion under article 7. However, since it's a church I'm going to let the debate run its course on the chance that some information will be added to make this particular place of worship notable. Also, the policy WP:God will smite you always makes me think twice before speedying religion related articles. -bobby 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere appropriate, or keep. Kappa 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any notable content to merge. --Brianyoumans 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These churches are surely very noble. They're just not notable for purposes of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. These articles border on an advertisement for the churches. OfficeGirl 20:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim of notability, no content that would be useful in another article. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources meeting WP:INDY are used. GRBerry 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safieddin Safavi-Naeini[edit]

Expired prod. Article had previously survived an AFD so thought it would be appropriate to relist it here. No opinion from me Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I don't see how this satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria for individuals. It doesn't seem that this professor posseses significantly more academic accolades than the average college professor, and I see no other claim of importance. -bobby 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that neither the article nor his linked CV really convinces me he is that notable. --Brianyoumans 04:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail in Aberdeen[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, and is also an invalid article because Wikipedia is not a gazeteer or directory. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom and also because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -bobby 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a gazeteer, travel guide, or directory. Hello32020 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I've heard the phrase "Wikipedia is not a gazeteer or directory" before, or a rephrasing of it. I come here to this discussion because it is the first I have seen of its kind since someone pointed out to me that Wikipedia is becoming a business listings site. They pointed to this category as an example and apparently there are many more like it (I haven't looked). I must admit, I agree with the nominator strongly in principle, but am becoming increasingly confused about what WP:ITIS and what WP:NOT. Any thoughts? Bubba hotep 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, for starters, that is a category, while this is an article listing companies, meaning that articles in the category actually exist. Any companies that have articles should also meet WP:CORP or they'll end up facing deletion, so articles in that category are (presumably) notable enough for an entry. In addition, we wouldn't have articles for, say, an individual Pizza Hut or Subway (as in this list). We would mention the national/international chain, but not the individual chapters, unless it was significant (ie largest store in the world, the first Wal-mart, etc). --Wafulz 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I actually think, to the common user, whether it is a category or a straight article (with the same number of blue links) – it all looks the same. I would vote "delete" if I thought it would make a difference. And I stated my personal case on the nominator's talk page as I thought it probably isn't appropriate here. An ongoing Wiki problem, I would say. Bubba hotep 00:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – not that this is quite the right place, but while we're on the subject raised by the above comment, I'd love to know what people think about these two shopping centres (malls) having their own articles: Bon Accord-St Nicholas Centre and The Mall Trinity. The latter isn't even very sizeable. I'm not keen to nominate them for deletion on top of this nomination in case anybody decides I have an axe to grind (I don't, I'm just trying to maintain WP quality) but if anybody else feels like doing so... ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is acting as a business directory and mostly lists national chains with individual stores. If someone really wants to add to this, they'd be better adding information to Wikitravel. --Wafulz 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A useful page, why don't wikipedians spend time creating content rather than spending time arguing about deleting and censoring content. --86.137.188.157 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best, move this to WikiTravel. --Oakshade 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Simply doesn't assert importance or meeting WP:WEB, and everyone in the AfD who doesn't play the game seems to agree. W.marsh 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyvern (online game)[edit]

An online game. Asserts "award winning" but does not prove it, website appears to be 404, no sources. Guy 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wasn't aware that games that weren't even in beta testing yet could win awards. Danny Lilithborne 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. Wickethewok 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to weak delete - While the award seems legitimate enough, all of the links added here are either to blogs, product listings, sites that just link to the Wyvern downloads, or press releases. It still doesn't seem to pass requirements for independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy and Danny Lilithborne, you really should do your research before making accusations like that. Why don't you take a look at the link below and then possibly revise your previous statements. http://www.insignia.com/content/contest/index.shtml

    Kassis, Michael 1 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.157.48.97 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-01 22:49:08

  • Being my first post to wikipedia, please forgive any errors regarding my comment posting format, as I am currently ignorant of of what the norm may be.

    My vote is: Keep this article.

    While the current creation of this article is rather ill timed for reasons explained below, I am getting a bit tired of having it deleted all the time. (Though yes, there were times when it deserved to be deleted, because someone tried to make it a game guide)

    This article is neutral (it does not try to convince you to play the game), it is not a game guide, it is a simple game overview.

    And as Kassis said, above, it really has won an award. It was for the PDA version of the game client.

    To Danny's comment "Beta test" means many different things to many different projects. There is no standard definition as to what a beta version. What it means is based on whatever the company or group wants. In the case of wyvern, it means roughly:

    1. fully playable
    2. bugs exist, and are being fixed
    3. content is being actively added
    4. more bugs are naturally occurring from the new content, and will eventually/are be fixed.
    5. game balance is not exactly where the wizards want it to be
  • I have played this game for 4 years, and can say from experiance that it is beta as much as open source projects are all beta.

    The game server is down, because Steve Yegge (know as "Rhialto" in game) is in the process of upgrading\switching the operating system (supposedly ubuntu). Unfortunatly, he is having more problems than expected. He wants to make absolutley sure the server and game are secure.

    One can see what the website looked like simply by looking at a cache. link

    If you think having server problems means an article should be deleted, I must disagree. If the World of Warcraft servers were all taken down due to severe problems, nobody would say "well, time to delete all information from wikipedia about this game". If something happened, and the game was never playable again, then the articles would still be preserved for historical purposes, the only change would be past tense would be used. Wyvern will be up again, but as for a time frame, I cannot say.

    One should also keep in mind, this game is not simply a text mud. You can login via telnet(i.e. for chatting), but you CANNOT play it like a typical mud. It is a fully graphical game, much like Crossfire (much of which inspired wyvern) or Daimonin

    Crossfire wiki: Crossfire (computer game)

    I would like to ask wikipedians to please stop trying to disrupt this article simply because they do not see it as valuable. Other people do.

    Logwad 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the first two votes for Delete have been basically fully negated , it stands to reason that the vote is, at best, 1-2. I vote Keep. Why pick on just this article. Wikipedia in general isn't 100% accurate, so it can't be used as a reliable source for anything. Why not focus all your energy on attempting to remedy this instead of just sitting around and deleting articles you don't approve of. I'm not sure exactly how this voting system works, but if it isn't majority rules, then that seems a little off.

    Oh wait. Just checked up on it. The link Kassis posted and the External to the homepage of the website should both satisfy "Fails WP:WEB, WP:V." As Logwad said, you can view a cache of the homepage. And, just in case you're interested, Wickethewok, Wikipedia:Deletion policy (Edited to remove the "head count" and the mistake about WP:V")69.29.72.220 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suggest that you check it yourself first. Being unverifiable has always been a criterion for deletion. It is, in fact, one of our primary criteria. This isn't a vote, and tallies count for very little if one side cannot make any argument based upon our policies and guidelines. So stop counting heads and start citing sources. If you want to make a proper argument — so far you have not, let alone refuted the arguments made above — cite sources to demonstrate that the article's subject satisfies the WP:WEB criteria. Sources are your best, and only, arguments against the charge that something is unverifiable. Multiple, non-trivial, published works from sources independent of the subject are your best arguments against the charge that the WP:WEB criteria are not satisfied. Uncle G 09:52, 2 November 2006 (
  • Just a note: From what I've gathered, it is almost impossible for any MMORPG to have an article in Wikipedia. For these games the main website, a player, and whatever they publish is considered a primary source, unless it is published by a reliable source. That point alone makes writing an article extremely hard. The other problem being that unless you're a HUGE game like RuneScape you're probably not going to have many reliable sources publish anything about the game at all. And if any reliable source has published anything about the game, you can't just say that they have, you must give proof, use a link to their website to show that it is true, otherwise it may be considered unverifiable. Garth of NEaB 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I better add no source if ever reliable, nobody can ever be truely objective, so I suggest you delete the entire Wikipedia Database.

Cite sources then?

http://www.mmoginfo.com/pc/Wyvern/index.html

http://www.mpogd.com/games/game.asp?ID=824

http://www.gamesdex.com/gameview.php/902

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Wyvern

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern_(%E3%82%AA%E3%83%B3%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0)

http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/java/Basic_Java_Limitations.htm

http://www.insignia.com/content/about/releases/021121.shtml

http://www.killefiz.de/zaurus/showdetail.php?app=360

http://www.pdamania.hu/blog/Menneisyys/5512/

for starters. 69.29.72.220 22:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


____________________________

I find this verifiable thing confusing. As far as the statement that the game is "award winning", I can see that this has drawn much ire from wikipedians. Would it satisfy you (plural) if I removed the "award winning" from the main description, and moved it to a subtopic on the page called "Achievements"(sp), or something?

And then as far as it being a game, yes, it is a game. I fail to see why it needs to be verified. In fact, I do not truly understand what you find wrong with this article. Non-notable? Type "wyvern"(a fairly common fantasy term) in google, and www.cabochon.com comes up as the first page rank.

I'm asking for a solution, rather than a "nuke it" mentality.

What if I create a bio for Steve Yegge, the creator? Steve Yegge has become quite well know for his "rants" on many aspects on programming, and has worked for Amazon and now for Google. http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/ Would having a famous creator help convince you that information on the game Wyvern in wikipedia would be desireable?


Other links (is a simple link truly considered a source? Seems silly to put such things IN the article.)

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/games/role_strategy/wyvernclient.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_MMORPGs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MMORPGs

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/wyvern (Link near bottom)

http://play-free-online-games.com/games/wyvern.html

http://alt-news.net/alt.mudders/1787/

Sadly, this link has expired, it held the original award page for the award the wyvern Zarus client: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.112102/223252121&ticker=INSG

Logwad 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) ____________________________[reply]

  • The point of having the sources listed is to prove that what you wrote is verifiable. This is also the reason that non-trivial secondary sources should be used, because they are more easily verified. (That's what I get out of it at least) Garth of NEaB 16:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For things like a certain type of tree grows x inches a year and whether someone won an award or not, I understand this perfectly. But this article is almost purely an overview of what the Wyvern game is, so that people can get a quick understanding of what it is about. I often will look through wiki for a game is about before downloading, setting up an account etc. MY intention is that sort of thing be offered for Wyvern too, as it is not game that is just starting up or anything, but has been around a while. So I do not understand why people simply want to nuke this article. If there is a sentence that needs a factual source, one can simply edit the wiki for it to say "needs source", or tag the article for cleanup.

Logwad 00:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC) *Woops, forgot to sign earlier.*[reply]

  • What we have above is directory entries (which fail the "non-trivial" test), links someone (you?) added to Wikipedia and other add-it-yourself sites, and nothing which independently verifies the text of the article. Plus the link is still 404. So right now I can't verify the ocntent from any reliable independent source, I can't even verify it exists, I can't check the neutrality of the article because the sources cited are all trivial and appear not to be independent, the content itself appears to be drawn from personal knowledge not from coverage in secondary sources - without fixing these problems the article violates core policies and must be deleted. Guy 09:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said earlier, this article had horrible timing. So for clarification, could you give me an example of what you would consider a "non-trivial" source? Do you mean some sort of website that specializes in game reviews? If this is the case, does popularity determine "non-trivial". How do I determine whether it is non-trivial source? I hope I do not come across as argumentative, I have already resigned that this article will most likely be deleted as people seem to have a problem with it. I am only trying to fully understand how to resolve these issues in the future. Thank you for your patience. Logwad 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-trivial would be a popular source that has been reliable for past things. So an independent game review website/magazine would probably be okay, as long as it is independent and it is well known. Garth of NEaB 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, I'm having the same verification problems as User:Guy, as most of those appear to be "add it yourself" database sites. An award might establish some sort of notability, but again, I'm having problems finding reliable information on what that award might be. Not every free, online MMOG is notable, and this one doesn't make a very strong case for inclusion. Between that and the lengthy posts by anonymous/new users, I'm inclined to delete. --Alan Au 07:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I'm having trouble verifying that the "award" is notable. I mean, I could go around giving people "awards" if I thought it would help. --Alan Au 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered the same thing, so I removed the "award winning" part from the article. Eventually, when this article can properly stand, then there will be mention of the award in another part of the article. The award WAS a big deal, years ago, because PDA's where becoming big, and there were very few games, much less one like wyvern. Things changed. Now I heard you can play 3-d rpgs on your phone. Logwad 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. There are many unique aspects of this game for which it has been recognised. Those reasons and rcognitions should be noted despite how minor the award may seem, its' still appropraite to the history of the game. --69.244.153.46 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Log's and others sources. This game and it's classic notabillity are establishable just not in the conventional way. Keep in mind notabilliy guidelines are not rules and for determining the notabillity of post MUD and pre MMPORG RPGS all that will ever exist are reviews and opinions. Still, just the fact that its the only still well known bridge between the telnet MUD era and the internet's recent boon of animae MMPORPG's warrents it to be of historical interest among online gaming historians. --69.244.153.46 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article as it exists now fails to assert notability in any way. NawlinWiki 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I can confirm most of the information in this article, from personal knowledge, as I used to play, and I think the subject is notable enough, although it would stop being notable if the game was down permanently. The article should be given some time to survive while the game creator works on bringing the server up. If the server doesn't come up any time soon, such as in the next two months or so, then the article should be deleted at that time and created again only when the server comes back up (if ever), at which time information about the game can be verified. Since the article isn't too great at this point, it could use a rewrite either way. Aborlan 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Fingers[edit]

Lots of text, but no real assertion of notability. All of the cited sources appeared to be originated by the author of the cartoon himself or affiliated persons. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- It's a notable internet phenomenon right now, but I'm sure it will eventually die down...--Releeshan 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The article has been around for while and has a lot of edits by a wide range of users which leads me to believe that the cartoon is of some notability. Granted, the article should express this better, but I see no justification for deleting an article with this much effort put into it simply because it's a little weak in certain areas. -bobby 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, seems to be edited by wide variety of users. --SunStar Net 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - several episodes hosted by Weebl's Stuff with up to 2.4 million views [44]. I'll add this to the page. Ac@osr 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Well, no one so far has really given any sort of actionable reasoning. Anyways, I don't think Salad Fingers has received any noteworthy independent coverage, so it seems like it should go into the notable parent article of Weebl's stuff. The cruftiness really needs to be toned down and the episode summaries slashed to a sentence or two in order to accomdate the merge. Wickethewok 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I don't see any point in WP:WEB to save it, but it is well known on the Internet. -- lucasbfr talk 00:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I admit that it is notable, the precedent has been set: [45], [46]. Therefore, with a heavy heart, but with the welfare of Wikipedia in mind, I vote delete. Ekjon Lok 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've been continuously looking up Salad Fingers on Wikipedia for years. I agree it's not a great article compared to other more concise and neatly cited ones, but it's great when someone wants to know what Salad Fingers is. That's what I love about Wikipedia: there's info on a variety of categories... though lately, I've been seeing many internet phenomenon articles getting shut down. It's disheartening. --Nuggit 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable internet phenomenon. Per WP:WEB, we don't care if a gazillion bored teenagers on the web love it, we care about multiple coverage in reliable published sources. Sandstein 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a real thing and anyone that wants to find out more about it should be able to come here and find out. Just because a few people dislike it, doesn't mean it should be removed from the site.
    • It's not a matter of like or dislike. The question is: does it fit Wikipedia's notability criteria, and is it encyclopedic? --

Nlu (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no question about the article's encyclopidity. It is in high quality and standard above any doubt.
    • I like this word, "encyclopidity". This should definitely enter into Wikipedia's vocabulary. Something that ought to be included would be described as of "high encyclopidity". Questionable entries would be of "low encyclopidity", or we would say that "the encyclopidity of this article is in doubt". This would definitely improve our discourse. --Ekjon Lok 01:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable internet phenomenon, no opposition to a merge either. RFerreira 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established by Ac@osr. --Richmeister 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very well-known flash cartoon. Extremely well-known. --- RockMFR 05:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is important. "Salad Fingers" is a phenomenon, and as long as it is, this article has its place in Wikipedia. The article is well written and holds worthy information. definitely keep.
  • Keep - I have heard of it many times. a keeper. Chris Kreider 15:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Ekjon Lok and Sandstein, this article has questionable encyclopidity. (Gosh, I can't believe I managed that phrase with a straight face) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep syndicate 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep :o) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable as demonstrated by lack of any significant third-party coverage. As-is, you could even make an argument that it fails WP:V. Fairsing 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.115.198 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Keep First Madness Combat, then RAB, and now Salad Fingers. Who the FUCK is behind this. STOP IT, DAMNIT. --88.19.164.199 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Caradori[edit]

Delete, conspiracycruft. This individual’s only apparent notability is that he was allegedly murdered to protect George Bush (41), and that allegation is so poorly sourced it never even made it into WP in the first place. The individual is not notable himself, and the allegations of sabotage fail WP:RS Without that allegation, this individual is non-notable for WP purposes. Brimba 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Delete the unaried 'documentary' too. Tbeatty 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of any reliable sources make me very suspicious. Notability is very much in doubt with only about 1340 ghits [47] GabrielF 19:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO. As one with the keys to the Wellstone Ray, I also have personal reasons for seeing this supressed. (I'm kidding!) - Crockspot 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The controversy in the article is based on speculation. The NTSB reference actually doesn’t help the article (and that is the only reference). I did Google check too and the hits are the biased websites. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability outside of the Franklin Coverup Scandal, and questionable notability even within it. Doesn't merit his own article, even as a stub, and fails WP:BIO utterly. Ultimately a footnote in a larger issue, better served within that issue's article.--Rosicrucian 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gary Caradori was not, and still isn't, notable outside of the events surrounding the Frankling Credit Union and Senator John DeCamp's sexual abuse allegations whom he claimed involved Lawrence E. "Larry" King Jr. Why is a throughly discredited set of allegations and the persons involved suddenly the "hot topic" in blogdom and notable-enough to warrant 6 separate articles? It's not. Nobody in the mainstream press is still talking about this issue. That makes the subject non-notable in an encyclopedia that requires reference to reliable secondary sources, not blogs. This story is dead, dead, dead, and has been since 1989. Morton devonshire 03:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation. For most of the rest of these I've recommended merge and redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal, but this one is so far out there, with no personal notability and no reliable source connecting him to the conspiracy theory, it should just go. --MCB 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability asserted, and none evident. Derex 08:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no notability asserted, and no sources, the one source present just proves this was a simple plane crash and so it doesnt warrant a seperate article, per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BIO. --NuclearZer0 11:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Strothra 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was g7 speedy by someone else. Wickethewok 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenock Princes Pier line[edit]

This article should be considered for deletion. I created this article to cover the railway between Elderslie and Greenock Princes Pier. It is now more correctly covered by the two railways companies that were responsible for building the line - Bridge of Weir Railway and Greenock and Ayrshire Railway. Following creation of these two pages, I have changed the appropriate links and left a holding comment on the page. -- Stewart 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion - Since you are essentially the only editor on the page, you can request speedy deletion per G7. Alternatively, you can ask for a redirect to be put in. It's up to you. -bobby 19:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafie’s Law[edit]

Non-notable astronomical theory. A Google search brings up nothing relevant (nor does one with alternative punctuation), and Google Scholar has nothing applicable to say on the matter. Mike Peel 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you had instead tried the name of the journal article that was cited both in the article's introduction and in the article's "references" section, you would have had more success. Uncle G 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. But that doesn't establish the use of the phrase "Rafie's Law", which is what the article is supposed to be about. A Google Scholar search for the title [48] finds the article, but no related articles. As noted by HEL below, the adsabs entry for the article [49] shows zero citations. Mike Peel 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't need to establish the use of a phrase. Looking for usages of phrases is dictionary thinking, not encyclopaedia thinking. A problem with an article title is something that can be simply addressed with the rename button to give the subject a better title. Encyclopaedia thinking is looking at the sources (both cited and potential) and evaluating them to see whether the article is verifable and whether the concept discussed has been fact checked, peer reviewed, published, and acknowledged by others, becoming part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct. I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. Thank you. Mike Peel 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable; it's nothing more than numerology. The Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service finds zero citations to the published paper. Also a search on ADS on the author's name finds this as his only published paper. HEL 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came here to say exactly what HEL said. Melchoir 04:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notability is the wrong deleteion criterion; there are plenty of obscure topics worth writing about. The problem with this article appears to be that its numerology, and has no basis in science. linas 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deletion criterion is actually in a tag on the article: Wikipedia:No original research. That policy is aimed squarely at theories that have not been acknowledged by the world at large beyond their creators and proponents. So in addition to considering how many people have cited the paper, we should be considering how much peer review occurs during the process of being published in Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions. Uncle G 09:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as original research. (aeropagitica) 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Law Prof[edit]

Original Research. This article is definitely original research in the sense that it is merely a random category that the author has cobbled together using emerging features of a few law professors. There has been no peer-reviewed or other reliable sourcing of this topic and there has been no scholarship exploring it. That makes it original research. Joebeone (Talk) 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google returns mostly references to this article and to a blog of the same name. So far I don't see evidence that this is not original research; though if Lessig or others have published about this that would be another matter. Dryman 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pondok Indah[edit]

PROD was removed, BUT article was not changed in any other way, and issues mentioned in the PROD were not addressed. The article is about a non-notable housing development. Neighborhoods that are historically significant in some way; inasmuch as they generate significant independant references, ARE valid encyclopedia articles. This one does not qualify. A google search turns up some references to a shopping mall and a golf course, however these are all referenced by the mall itself, shops within the mall, or by the golf course itself. Additionally, the article has very little assertion of notability (a single possibly notable golf tournament was held there, but it is unreferenced) and the entire article is unreferenced. Until and unless the article can be properly referenced in reliable sources, per WP:RS and can show notability through said sources, it should be deleted. Jayron32 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why was the Prod removed after only 1 day? It stated 5 days. Thus what is the point of prod? As for the question at hand, from my knowledge, Pondok Indah is the wealthiest area in jakarta (or second to the older Kemang district). Jakarta is one of the largest cities in the world and capital of the world's fourth biggest country. Yes, "estate" sounds like a single development, i understand it is much more like a suburb even area in scale. I suggest the article was written by non-native English speaker and hence notability is lost in translation. I will look into it myself, and try and get some Jakartan wikipedians to comment. But don't remove this in a day either please - gives us a few days. I am leaning to "keep" but would of course like confirmation of its status.--Merbabu 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply PRODs left after five days automatically delete the article in question. The idea behind a PROD is to draw attention to an article that as it stands does not look to be of an encyclopedic subject. Based on the way the article is written, it LOOKS to me like a newly developed rich housing development. It has an advertisement feel to it. I tried to establish notability first by doing a google search, AND by reading the articles I found there. I could find no reliable third-party references to the area in question. Since the PROD was removed without any change made to the article (which is what a PROD specifically calls for: Improvement), I moved it here to AFD, which is the next step after a PROD. I assert that as it stands now the article should be deleted. Comments below are made by people who think otherwise. If they can provide evidence (read: reliable sources WP:RS) that supports the assertions made below, and can integrate them into the article in question, I will withdraw my nomination. But I am still waiting on the needed references. --Jayron32 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to remember, that Indonesia is not the same as the US. It is relatively poor, less-educated, less IT-savvy, less internet orientated than your USA. It is a continual problem finding reliable info on the internet on INdonesiaa in English. Whereas on the USA, and my own Australia, it is not a problem. Please consider that. You are making your judgements from a USA point of view - expecting Indonesian topics to fit the same criteria of US or Australian topics isn't going to work. It's an ongoing and some extent inevitable systematic bias in Wikipedia - it's no one's fault in particular.
Pondok Indah I understand had its first modern developments in the 1970s - that's old for Jakarta.--Merbabu 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This looks like a signifficant section of Jakarta, notable for its wealth - an annual salary of US$357,200 in any place, no less Indonesia, is a pretty high assertation of notability. Strangely, it's more than a "houseing estate" and it's surprising the article lists it as such. And when Citibank names its branch there the Pondok Indah branch [50], you know it's a real place. --Oakshade 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply I could find a housing development in any city with the same or higher annual salary. It does not make it particularly notable. Some neighborhoods are poor and notable, others are rich and unnotable. The difference is whether or not the neighborhood in question is refered to in nontrivial, reliable, third party sources, not how rich its inhabitants are. That a bank named its branch after the area is also not any indication of notability; Banks can name their branches after neighborhoods, streets, whatever. It doesn't really make the thing the bank branch is named after notable. Now, if the assertion is that this is an honest-to-god suburb, and much larger than what I think of when I see "housing estate" we only need to see references that confirm such, and I would THEN withdraw my nominiation. But as it stands now it appears non notable, and thus deleteable. --Jayron32 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for this being an "honest-to-god suburb" , there's already speculation by a former Jakarta resident here that "housing estate" is probably a translation mistake. Besides, the Yahoo Jakarta neighborhood Travel guide refers to Pondok Indah as a "district" [51] not a "housing estate". That's an actual reference that beats yours or mine speculation and unless you can find a reliable third party source that counters that, that's all we got. I'm finding that it's one of the most ritzy parts of Jakarta - and an average income of US$357,200 is a gigantic average income for any neighborhood and is very notable. Look at Montecito, California, one of the wealthiest communities in the US and the median income there is just $110,669. And if you don't find these things notable, that's your POV. And about the banks, banks name their branches after the town they're in. If a street is mentioned in the branch name, it usually is because one town has two or more branches and they add the street name as an addition; i.e. New York City - 5th Ave.. --Oakshade 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as i recall from living in Jakarta almost 10years ago it was often referred to more than any other area because of its wealth. Ie, every big city has its notable wealthiest suburb. As for the term "housing estate", I am fairly certain that is a translation problem. Yes, there is new development there, but its not just one commercial development --Merbabu 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Merbabu. Brimba 07:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see the usefulness of this article. --Nielswik(talk) 08:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Keep per another editors. But it have to be added more worth--Nielswik(talk) 13:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Really, I cannot see why the article shoud be deleted. As an Indonesian, I know that it is a district and yes, one of the wealthiest district in Jakarta. Based on Merbabu and Oakshade's points we all can see the notability of the district. I also have searched pages about districts and I can find zillions of them. Imoeng 08:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I know the district, but speaking about notability, I have to say that the district is only known because of rich people living there. There's no such a qualified notability in terms of history that has contributed to Jakarta, compared with other historical districts (Kota, Glodok, Sunda Kelapa?), which some of them are still missing here. So I am afraid if richness is the only criterion for keeping it here, then there will be other rich districts pop up (Kapuk, Bintaro?). — Indon (reply) — 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly would say there's more of interest than just wealth there. Firstly, a district of mostly wealthy ex-pats in Jakarta sounds very notable. Secondly, with a concentration of such wealth, it shows a concentration of one of the most influencial segments of a gigantic metropolitan area. Like other Indonesians here have said, unless we're familiar with the place, it's very presumptive of us to judge what qualifies as notable. Your knowledged take on the district is highly valued and as for those other districts you mentioned that might still be missing, if they have historic or other value, I think most of us would like to see articles on them. --Oakshade 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyone with a lack of knowledge of Jakarta or Indonesia should not even question notability, they should stay well away from such suggestions - just look at the thousands of USA locations with 120 residents or a couple of thousand that have articles, and they have no notability issues on them whatsoever. SatuSuro 10:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I am not proposing any deletions, I decided to look up the home state in the USA of the proponent of the deletion; New Hampshire. It has a population of about 1m. Jakarta has a population of between 8 and 15m depending what one counts as Jakarta. Not many areas (or any?) in Jakarta have articles on them yet on the New Hampshire page alone i found dozens of tiny little towns. This one is a classic case of (admitedly unintended) bias on Wikipedia and was linked this part of the New Hampshire page. By rights, if the wealthiest suburb in the fourth largest country in the world needs to be deleted, will User:Jayron32 also be proposing this town of 0 (yes zero) population also be deleted? Another [52], and this town has 516 people and are simply told a "famous covered bridge" but we are told no more. I clicked on 6 locations from dozens just 1 state and got those. The name says it all: Plainfield, New Hampshire. DOn't get me wrong, I think it is great that this info is here, but people need to be consistent. Futhermore, i think the problem with Pondok Indah may not be so much about notability but more about article quality. This explains quite a lot Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#The_origins_of_bias --Merbabu 10:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Thank you all for assuming good faith. I really like it when people assign motives to my actions without asking. When I nominated this for AfD, I left a list of ways to make the article better. All I am asking is for someone with experience in the area to please improve the article so it can be kept. I WANT THE ARTICLE TO GET BETTER. As it stood when I nominated it, it appeared non notable as written (housing estates are rarely notable; there was NO information in the article relating to population. It read like an advertisement trying to sell homes in a new housing development. See the version I nominated here) Recent changes have made this more notable. As a second note, if you want to nominate another article for deletion, do so, but THE EXISTANCE OF OTHER DELETABLE ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO THIS ARTICLE. If you want to keep this article, add value to it by providing references. --Jayron32 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With genuine respect, i think you are possibly misinterpreting the intent of my post, but that is partly my fault perhaps - maybe I am not clear. I said I wasn't suggesting deletions, on the contrary, I specifically said I thought the info (on the New Hamp) towns is good. I was only using these NH state towns to point out wider systematic problem in Wikipedia that perhaps could explain your concerns with the Pondok Indah article. When I said systematic bias i did state it was unintended and a wikipedia problem, not your own personal bias, much less an attempt to cast aspersions about anyone's motives. In fact, this is my own pet hate. I never you assumed anything but good faith from you - I am surprised (and concerned) that my edits suggest otherwise but will certainly go thru this page and see if i can improve somehow. Although I disagree with the specific reasons for the nomination of Pondok Indah, I understand and support your initial rational, and indeed your right to do so - we all know this how wikipedia is improved.
The fact is, info on countries like the US and Australia is of relatively high quality (both on wikipedia and the wider internet), compared to, for example, equally notable Indonesia (or other "less developed" countries, for want of a better term). That goes a long way to explaining the bias in choosing articles to edit - that is, an Australian largely editting Indonesian-related articles. Sure, this goes beyond the article-specific issue at hand, but i included it here cos (IMO) it goes a long way to explaining how this became an issue in the first place.
lastly, perhaps all this belongs on user talk pages, but since your concerns are now in the open, i think it is appropriate, but not ideal, that I address them here. i hope this causes no offence.
Kind regards --Merbabu 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAW NOMINATION The recent copyedits to the article, and the addition of the yahoo travel page have MORE than established notability. --Jayron32 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lance[edit]

Non notable student newspapers, including one in fabulous Windsor, Ontario. Prod removed. Content already merged to college articles. Brianyoumans 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The JPStalk to me 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nuttah68 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Student newspapers are often notable. In this case, the article is a stub, so it's missing a list of famous alumni or the year the paper was founded. My guess is that the paper is older than the University of Windsor (that is, it was once the student newspaper of the (Catholic) Assumption University before the (secular) University of Windsor was founded, and that several decades of publishing have generated a fair number of famous alumni. The Lance is rather more lively than the Windsor Star, the city's daily newspaper, but that's not saying too much--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ringing endorsement, especially the last part, Truthbringer! So you are saying I should be AFDing the Windsor Star instead? --Brianyoumans 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a more serious note: I think it is a bad precedent to have separate articles for student organizations, including newspapers. If some additional notable info turns up on The Lance, it can be included in the university entry. At the moment The Lance is covered there in 6 words; it can take up some additional space before needing its own entry. --Brianyoumans 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per nomination ("Content already merged to college articles.") Kappa 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm puzzled. Are you saying it is a speedy keep because I have acknowledged that there is notable content? The content I that I merged in (because someone complained that the article should be merged, not deleted) basically consisted of the word "weekly" and a link to The Lance website. I'm not sure those were that notable either, but I was trying to keep everyone happy. --Brianyoumans 08:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you merged it word-for-word, the GFDL requires the edit history to be retained and this should be speedily kept and whether or not to redirect should be discussed on the talk page. Even if you rewrote it, there is no reason to delete a redirect from this title. I don't care if there is a separate article about this or not, but in any event there should be either a redirect or a disambiguation. Kappa 05:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've noted on the talk page, for any other print publication the baseline criterion for inclusion is "has a circulation of at least 5,000 copies". I simply don't see how we can treat this differently as a student newspaper than we would if it were published off-campus by a commercial company. Keep. Bearcat 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, having worked on a student paper I can tell you the usual print run is a tenth of the student population. So unless we are talking about 50000+ students I doubt this publication meets that figure.Nuttah68 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper's circulation figure is already cited directly in the article: 10,000. I can't speak for the UK, but in Canada it's quite normal for a student newspaper to have off-campus distribution points as well (especially, but not exclusively, in cities that don't also have their own commercial alt-weeklies), so that brings circulation up at least a couple of thousand over on-campus distribution alone. Bearcat 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if that figure represents a "readership" number instead of a "circulation" number. Often publications like to talk about their "readership", i.e. the average number of people who read a particular copy (2 or more) times the printed circ. I can't find any circulation numbers on the website, so I don't know where that number came from. --Brianyoumans 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think student newspapers should be treated differently; I would argue that they serve a restricted community and they are amateur productions. Brianyoumans 04:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some interesting parallels between student newspapers and Wikipedia. Both have contributors who range from the not-very-good to the excellent. "Amateur productions" can be extremely good. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to The Lance (University of Windsor); it is also the name of Colegio de San Juan de Letran's school paper. --Howard the Duck 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I mentioned earlier that the article would benefit from a list of famous alumni. Such a list has now been started, although at this point it contains only one alumna, Anna Maria Tremonti. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to Withdraw the Nomination at this point; I think the latest addition to the article, the link to the censorship controversy, has convinced me. I think the idea of moving the article to The Lance (Windsor) is a good one. Brianyoumans 07:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (aeropagitica) 14:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitcharoo[edit]

Another patently not-notable neologism. Besides that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this appears to be a pretty transparent advertisement for the Hitcharoo website. Still, didn't quite fit under db-bio or db-g11; we need a speedy deletion criteria for these.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent publishing[edit]

This article violates WP:SPAM. It is an advertisement for Embarka Digital Media, Inc., which has a planned future launch of a web marketing project. It is related to the article Social marketplace which was recently re-created after being deleted (see discussion) OfficeGirl 19:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Gerry Ashton 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be spam. Hello32020 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Methinks this could be redirected somewhere useful, but I can't think of exactly what at the moment. Danny Lilithborne 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singstar '70s[edit]

This article exists only as a rumor, and should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is also an orphan article with only one link; a redirect from the article's previous title. The only reference to this game I can find online are mirror sites of Wikipedia, blogs, forums, and a rumor that it was to be released in Australia in Mid October '06. I say delete. -- AuburnPilottalk 19:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 20:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but perhaps make a mention in the Singstar Legends article that Sony (or someone else) apparently released rumours that there would be "Singstar '70s" and "Singstar Xmas", but then instead officially released Legends. Confusing Manifestation 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roseland United Church (Windsor)[edit]

Non notable churches in ever-notable Windsor, Ontario. See also St. James' Anglican Church (Windsor), above. Brianyoumans 19:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • including:Paulin Memorial Presbyterian Church --Brianyoumans 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate. Kappa 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think there is any notable content in these entries. --Brianyoumans 20:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These churches are surely very noble. They're just not notable for purposes of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. These articles border on an advertisement for the churches. OfficeGirl 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability; Wikipedia is not a directory. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neither uses sources satisfying WP:INDY GRBerry 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Basildon. KrakatoaKatie 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Leisure Park[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable business development. Not the first, not the biggest in the county, no notable features Nuttah68 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I hadn't encountered the term "leisure park" before I saw this article. I added some external links and references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leisure Park is part of the company's trading name, not a specific development type. Nuttah68 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. All it is a random collection of stores and such. JoshuaZ 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (note if better sourcing can be produced I won't object to a merger). JoshuaZ 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It is not notable enough to constitute a whole article but I think it should be merged into Basildon, as it is a significant feature of the town, mentioned in local media (not always for advertising). I am happy to merge it. Ksbrown 15:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Basildon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclodster (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with Basildon, since TT fixed it up some. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Kerala cartoonists. - Bobet 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kerala Cartoonists[edit]

an article of the same name already exists. [53]. Hence, delete this one as that list is much more comprehensive than this one, no need to merge anything. After that, that page could be moved here. Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Alberta[edit]

According to the party's own web site, it has only one member. Google does not have the party's web site in the first page of results for "Party of Alberta". The party does not meet notability criteria. Indefatigable 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, the party was founded in 2006 and has only one registered member.--TBCΦtalk? 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is not even a political party yet. It is not a registered political party according to Elections Canada. -- Whpq 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. In the future, if they become notable, then we'll recreate the article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are already other unregistered parties on the List of political parties in Canada page. This party officially launched on November 1st, according to their organizer's blog; http://partyofalberta.blogspot.com/2006/11/launch-of-party-of-alberta.html . It seems a serious effort. But, if you are going to delete and state that registration is a necessary criteria, then it should be stated whatever other specific criteria (membership count, for example) for a Party to become noteable enough to warrant a article on Wiki - otherwise, delete all the articles on the other unregistered parties. Knave 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a one member "party" whos website is a blog is not notable. Serious effort or not, notability has to be achieved first, and this individual has not come close. Resolute 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then go for it, can it. Still suggest that criteria be established - and that the Party of Alberta entry be locked against any future restarting. Change vote to Delete :) Knave 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a fledgeling party.--Húsönd 02:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Beer[edit]

Contested speedy. A non notable drink bottled and distrubuted by Coca Cola's Australia franchise. As the article stands it is a list of ingredients and the advice that you can buy it Nuttah68 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as long as similar products have articles. The JPStalk to me 21:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In these days of global brands, some people take pride in their local or national brands, such as Kole Beer in Australia, spruce beer in Quebec, Moxie in some places in the United States, or Irn-Bru in Scotland. I think that many Australians prefer an Australian brand to a global one, even if it is bottled by the local bottler of Coca-Cola. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wont say delete just yet, but the article doesn't say anything about the product at all... If it had something interesting it may be worth an article, otherwise I am going to have to say that I think speedy G11 fits in this case. Ansell 22:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Expanding the article will probably require some book research, since there don't seem to be many online sources. I recognize that the article is a stub. I would keep the article and hope that some Australian editor with access to print references will eventually expand the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real brand of nationally distributed beer. That the article currently has very little information is an issue about expanding, not whether the suject should have an article or not. --Oakshade 00:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Real brand with minimal to none coverage. Nothing in Google News or Google News archive. [54] A search for "Kole beer" in EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database says "No results were found." As an Australian, I hadn't heard of this brand although I had heard of Kirks. I doubt that there are any written sources for this. Capitalistroadster 06:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't care for this product, but it appears to be nationally distributed. Notable enough for me. Lankiveil 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect with the nomination withdrawn. T Rex | talk 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funckarma[edit]

This band does not meet WP:MUSIC

  • Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country There is no evidence of this on the article page.
  • Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country. Doesn't look as if they have an album that meets either of the two.
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources. Once again no evidence that they have. If so it must be a notable and verifiable source.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Well they have never been on a major label. They have been on a few indie labels, most of them not being notable.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.) Doesn't seem to be any evidence of this after doing a google search.
  • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. The band is two brothers who have been in this band only.
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Could be possible, I haven't found any sources saying that they have.
  • Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award. They haven't wond any major award.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition. According to their article they haven't been in any major music competitition.
  • Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) If they did have one of these then it would be best to have them redirect to that work of media.
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. This needs to be verified if possible.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network. Once again a google search doesn't show that they have been part of a broadcast on a national radio network. T REXspeak 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • previous nom T REXspeak 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per extended nom. The JPStalk to me 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Um, this band was just nominated on October 31. See previous AFD Why is this being nominated again? I'm dubious of the nomination without even mentioning the prior discussion. It was rather short, and I can see an RFV, but not this. FrozenPurpleCube 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, it wasn't a short period, I misread the dates. Merely a small number of votes. Sorry, but you really should have pointed out that it was a second nomination. FrozenPurpleCube 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The person who closed it told me to nominate it again because I felt the points made by the people voting keep weren't valid. Also I thought the title would give it away. T REXspeak 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And when making a second nomination, you should bring up prior nominations. Especially when you do it so very quickly afterwards . Given that you made such a lenghty proposal, a single line to say "This article was previously nominated here" would not have been a problem, would it? Consider it a courtesy to your fellow Wikipedians. FrozenPurpleCube 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep due to them having released on Skam Records, of which I've never heard, but wiki has an article so I'm assuming some notability. Jcuk 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we've just had a discussion on this. Catchpole 08:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt the arguements in the first nomination were not very strong ones and there were only 3 people who discussed it. The person who closed it told me to nominate it again because they didn't want to reopen a closed afd. T REXspeak 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying Keep again. I appreciate that this is a greatly superior nomination to the first and a highly detailed one but Afd is not clean-up and renominating the next day does not give any opportunity for this to take place. I stand by my notation of the GHits for the duo - a lack is often cited as a reason for deletion so it seems inconsistant to disregard a significant quantity (NB - I am not suggesting that the nominator is guilty of this inconsistancy, this is more a remark on double standards often present in Afd). More to the point, Discogs - accepted in WP:MUSIC as a "good" source - lists them as members of Shadow Huntaz, who have released 2 albums on a notable label (Skam Records) - 4 if you count the instrumental versions, which I don't. A Google search confirms that the information on Discogs is correct and that the brothers were members for both of the relevant releases, although some sources simply list them as producers. I shall add it to the article (I had hoped for a longer window in which to do this, but there you go....) as this role does not appear to be covered. If I had time, I might be more inclined to do an article for Shadow Huntaz (although, perhaps ironically, they have fewer GHits than Funckarma) and copy the relevant information. Ac@osr 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm they seem to be notable as Shadow Huntaz but not as Funckarma. Should they be kept as Shadow Huntaz and a redirect from Funckarma to SH? T REXspeak 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll give me time to do a SH article, I will include the information from this one and a redirect could be put into place. Ac@osr 10:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, basic Shadow Huntaz article now up, I'll add the discographical information later on. I would now support a redirect to this feature. Ac@osr 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Coredesat 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vineet Narain[edit]

Very POV and unfactual This article doesn't seem to have any factual basis. Nothing links to it, it links to nothing. It seems to be just one big vanity page and its totally POV.

  • Comment The article is heavily POV, for sure. And there is a complete lack of sources. But googling for his name indicates that he was involved in a significant event in India, and a landmark case in the Indian Supreme Court. So, there may well be an article, but I'm not sure. -- Whpq 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - A bit more reading on my part seems to indicate that the person is notable, and Mereda has already started cleanup on the POV and adding sources. -- Whpq 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup As Whpq says, he was involved personally in a big news story and his Supreme Court case is often cited. I've put in a new leading paragraph, a couple of citations from good sources, and added a little stub article on the Hawala scandal. --Mereda 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Mereda  Doctor Bruno  01:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. This is simply Briefsism (AfD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (more AFD discussion) once again. Uncle G 21:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Briefs[edit]

Probably non-notable fraternity, is it encyclopedic?? CampHorn 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. And the Google results suggest that it's a hoax. Delete Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it isn't a hoax, it's real, verifiable, and is a widely popular fraternity at many universities, not just the one mentioned in the article. Really, it's merely an obscure group that is becoming well-known and has been for a while now. It is a widely popular cult with hundreds of members in UK, USA and Ireland. There's no reason to delete it, you would be silly to delete it.

It's real verifiable and not a hoax, no way. Colbber 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep what a stupid idea to delete this article - has anyone even got a clue why its deletable?? no way should it be deleted, it's notable, briefs are a part of modern culture, get over it. --Llloydfrancer 21:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take the AfD as a hint to CLEANUP the article - From the article:
"it is followed as a religion in Northern Ireland, more so than Catholicism."
If there are people out there who would like this article to remain, statements such as the one above need to be deleted. The entire article needs more citations and wikiformatting. If these changes do not occur during the next few days, I will change my suggested action. I would do cleanup on the article myself, but I'm a boxers fan. -bobby 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Jacoby[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BIO. Doesn't have multiple independent sources, and only claims to notability are NN films (Butterflies is a possible exception, but that is very borderline) The JPStalk to me 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pan III[edit]

This is now a valid article. Handicapper 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Fades to Black[edit]

Non-notable radio program/podcast. 142 Google hits. Anonymous user (presumed to be the author) more or less admits that this is an article to promote the radio show: "If bands, musicians, radio stations, etc are allowed to use Wiki as a vehicle for promoting their talent, why is one overzealous Wiki editor consistently after our Wiki page?" Not sure if this quite qualifies as spam, but it seems so in nature, but the bottom line is that it is non-notable. Metros232 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -- Vary | Talk 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam/WP:COI.--Húsönd 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) I'm not sure what guideline to apply (WP:WEB does not seem appropriate because it started as a terrestrial radio show, and there is no guideline I know of for radio shows (although if there is, please point it out). Anyway, I am quite certain an unreferenced and hard to objectively verify article on a college radio show does not pass muster.-- danntm T C 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Jewish Legion[edit]

Why delete Please see talk page, but I think this is either wishful thinking or a stupid joke... V. Joe 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - Google's never heard of it, unless you count reprinted copies of this article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable GabrielF 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much as I usually hate the term, this really is original research. -- Necrothesp 02:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fantasy/hoax. The article describes the organization as just being an idea, which itself would violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this isn't even a real idea in the sense that anyone can be verified to have proposed it outside this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Good find V. Joe. --Justanother 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ouch, I can't believe it stayed here that long... -- lucasbfr talk 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas Middle School[edit]

Nothing but vandalism being added to this article. As this is a middle school, it barely meets criteria to be notable anyway. There are very few constructive edits being inputted into the article, but instead it's being used as a playground for vandals. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Although i'm sure there will be some people voting keep and claiming that all schools are notable (which is not true). TJ Spyke 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to use sources satisfying WP:INDY so it is impossible to have an article adhering to both WP:V and WP:NPOV simultaneously. GRBerry 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a National Blue-Ribbon School recognized school, should meet WP:SCHOOLS as well but the guideline is in flux. Yamaguchi先生 04:40, 4 November 2006
  • Speedy Keep we dont just delete stuff thats become a target of vandalism... if we did that George W. Bush and John Kerry would have been deleted long ago. We clean up the vandalism and protect it. As there is no real valid reason for this listing... this should be a Speedy keep.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not all just about vandalism, but also the fact that it fails to assert nobiltity. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 14:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt in the article to establish notability. Vegaswikian 03:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep Being a blue-ribbon school is some claim of notability. JoshuaZ 02:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. --Myles Long 17:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yamaguchi, notability is already demonstrated within the article. Silensor 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equix[edit]

Was originally deleted under CSD G11, but the article's creator, Gzuckier sent it to DRV. Someone suggested the article be restored and sent to AfD instead, so here I am. Nishkid64 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Full DRV with links posted by Gzuckier is here; I found this Thoroughbred Times short piece to have a fairly compelling assertion of notability: "...interest in the Lexington-based company that advises several high-profile clients using racing analysis and equine measuring techniques at the country's major bloodstock auctions." Within the field, it seems notable enough, provided that's not just lifted from the company website. Thoroughbred Times seems to have a good pedigree, pardon the pun. -- nae'blis 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the Thoroughbred Times articles and 1 google news hit are sufficient to make it meet WP:CORP. No assertion of significance in the artcle.
  • Keep. I think the two references are enough to establish notability. Trade magazines are as valid a source of information as daily newspapers, and have the background to cover technical issues more closely. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating verifiability with notability per WP:CORP which this fails. Delete Eusebeus 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there's not multiple, nontrivial news mentions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think I am saying something along the lines of you are conflating verifiability with notability. Eusebeus 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I were, the notability guidelines that govern when a company is notable are met with the subject of this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's two articles that feature the company:
    • A CALCULATED GAMBLE Waco owner betting on scientific approach to buying racehorses The Dallas Morning News February 3, 1996
    • THOROUGHBRED EVALUATION GETS TECHNICAL Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) May 26, 1992
    I'm not yet sold on its notability, but there are about 25 other articles that mention Equix in relation to horse races, so if we find moore I might go with Keep. ~ trialsanderrors 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple and nontrivial, not really a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What else are you seeing that's nontrivial, Jeff? Most of the ones I saw in TT or elsewhere had to do with the founders' breakup, or were mentions of the company buying/selling Horse X or breeding Bloodline Y. Not sure that's enough.... -- nae'blis 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going off of T&A's research .--badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been spending waaaay too much time at AnonEMouse's RfA, I'm certain of it - T&who? -- nae'blis 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too, apparently, since that was a Freudian typo if I've ever seen it. T&E, trialsanderrors, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eusebeus. WhisperingBoo! 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Figured I might as well add my 2 cents worth. Again, I'm not married to the article, but is there some problem that we are so overburdened with thoroughbred racing articles that we need to start pruning them based on our substantial understanding of that world? Click on Category:Horse racing companies and you get
Pages in category "Horse racing companies"
There are 0 pages in this section of this category.

I guess I'm not so much arguing for this article because I'm so fascinated with it, but because it fills a hole in Wikipedia, even if imperfectly, and I would be more in favor of deleting it if there were something else that filled the hole. The questions of notability via Google hits for WP:CORP are a bit out of place here, this not being a corporation, thereby eliminating all the stock exchange/financial type sites and restricting the notability to the actual horse world, not the business world. (Also, the number of google hits seems to vary every week. Last week it was Results 1 - 100 of about 1,480 for equix horse[55]. User above reports 170 hits. Today I get 602. [56]Gzuckier 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, I guess. - Bobet 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa D'Amato[edit]

prod was removed by user:Hotwiki without comment. While Hotwiki has added content to the page, D'Amato remains a losing reality show contestant who hasn't gone on to notability after the show; she's just a struggling model with a couple of small gigs since then. Mikeblas 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Far on ANTM (Final six) 12,000 Google hits, only ANTM non winner to appear on future season-Acne_Wash
  • Weak delete Dang, as much as I like to look at girls; not really notable. I can understand how some editors might want to call every major contestant (final 12 or so) on a major network reality show notable so I will weaken my delete. --Justanother 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, noted reality contestant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Notable for being on a reality TV show. --SunStar Net 12:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lisa also had a fight with her fellow contender Coryn, where Lisa adviced Coryn to stop working out because Coryn's body looks muscular and Coryn didn't like the comment. Then, after one challenge where Lisa danced on an interview with Chris Spencer, Coryn commented that she need to come up with another dance move. lisa responded that .... Oh God. Delete this now. Eusebeus 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By the logic that keeps her because she was a reality show contestant; I just looked at The Biggest Loser and could not find one contestant with their own entry. Do you really think all reality show contestants are notable just by virtue of being on a show? --Justanother 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do, yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK then, that defines the argument better. Personally, I will change mine then to a weak delete. --Justanother 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete notability not established, struck out earlier vote. --SunStar Net 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Final six, still working, 12,000 Google hits,only non-winner to have appearence on future top model season
  • Weak delete I would say weak keep, until I realized that she didn't even make it to the final five, and pissing in a diaper (and otherwise being obnoxious) doesn't make her notable. Plus, if this page stays, it's gonna need major work. Everytime someone tries to clean it up, it continues to get boggled down with unencyclopedic content. Elcda0 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's because there's not much to say about someone who isn't notable. Note that Lisa has about 12,000 Google hits. [57] -- Mikeblas 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Lisa is the best contestant on Cycle 5 and I think she will have a career for the coming years. Hello, she was the most entertaining model in the show watch the show if you want a proof or find videos of her in Youtube and she even appear in Cycle Six even though she did not win and did not reach the final five. --hottie 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Best" is an opinion. "Most entertaining" is an opinion. This is an encyclopedia, we don't use opinions. YouTube is not a valid reference here either. wikipediatrix 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know but that's the reason why I want her article not to be deleted and also "Not really notable" is an opinion. This is an encyclopedia. I'm just saying if you want to watch Lisa go to Youtube.com not add it as a reference.--hottie 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite my strong personal opinion that so-called "reality tv" is utter crap. The subject's notability seems clearly established. The content is verifiable, if not yet as well-sourced as it could be. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Doc Tropics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, everyone is free to create an article if they want, on conditions that if they can verify the information they added to the article is true and if there is a lot of info to find about the concerning matter. I'm not suggesting to make an article for every 'reality star' there has ever been, but the article is well-referenced and meets the requirements for an article. His (user:Hotwiki) comment to keep the article may not be objective, but if the reason to delete the article is because she hasn't won the competition or being a struggling model, then for the same reason, you should also delete all the articles for most of the contestants of American Idol. Most of them haven't had many gigs after the show either but still they are not proposed to be deleted. Some examples from some seasons: Christina Christian (1st season), Amy Adams (season 3), Ayla Brown (season 5). If it was Catie Anderson, it would make perfectly sence to delete the article, it lacks of information, consising of 2 lines. But Lisa's article has much more information (referenced as well). Give it some time. -- Luigi-ish 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. There are also conditions for keeping articles; one of them is notability. For biographical articles like this one, the applicable criteria are at WP:BIO. The information in the article isn't encyclopedic, and the subject of the article isn't notable. Therefore, the article should be removed. We can always create a new article describing the things that this person has done if they some day do something that is notable. -- Mikeblas 14:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. User:Hotwiki is continually reverting without explanation my removal of the article's unsourced material, without which this article is just a stub. More disturbingly, the user is relentlessly adding false sources that do not contain the information being referenced. wikipediatrix 15:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipediatrix I think you are actually not reading the link I added, you can see at TV.com link that Lisa actually guests at Cycle 6 and hello do we really need sources of what she did in America's Next Top model what is written there is basically true, she drinks, cousin it, urinating at the diaper, etc are all true. Read the link from televisonwithoutpity.com it is written about the fight of Lisa and Coryn. Lisa already did something notable hello what are you talking about she even won an award because of her role in the show.--hottie 15:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not the links I was referring to. wikipediatrix 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And What? those were the stuffs u deleted.--hottie 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. People who have been in a series of a soap season are notable, so is this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Bobet 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Terror[edit]

No notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (software). Prod was removed on 3/10/06 with the comment (rm prod / give me some time to get some sources). However, no untrivial sources have been added since then. Marasmusine 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One of the most famous Q3A mods, still played. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some random online news bits: GameSpy spotlight, Slashdot... and that's just five minutes of googling. Plenty of more where that came from. IIRC, this was also covered in my local game mag, though I'm not sure; I'm pretty certain mod that's this famous has to be covered in some of the bigger magazines too. I hope this demonstrates it's not entirely a worthless, unknown mod. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually mentioned I had a source for this in another AFD, I've not yet worked it into the article, but it's a full page review of the mod by PC Zone. - Hahnchen 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Alan Au 04:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep high profile Quake 3 TC. Should have coverage in gaming magazines. — brighterorange (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. AfD is not really needed for a merge... just merge it back. If the term shouldn't exist as a redirect, see WP:RFD. W.marsh 14:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indult Catholic[edit]

  • delete and merge PoV Fork, they are completely the same as traditionalist Catholics, except that some trad groups claim they are not traditionalist. Merge back into article, but most of this is a dupe of TC. Dominick (TALK) 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please correct me if I am wrong but this seems very different from Traditionalist Catholics (TC). Indults have been granted an "indulgence" by the Holy See to practice the Mass in Latin, a "Church-approved" Latin version. TC disputes the wisdom of the modernization reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Indults have to specifically distinquish themselves from TC to receive this indulgence. They seem very different to me and certainly sufficiently different to have a separate article. --Justanother 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is they are no less traditionalist, if all the practices of the Catholics of this stripe do not differ from other Catholics.Dominick (TALK) 21:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not that familiar and am basing my opinion on my read of the articles. It seems to have to do with traditional vs. Traditional (AKA traditionalist) with Indults being traditional. I am not sure that the distinction is well delineated in the TC article so I lean toward a separate article for Indults IF there is some cohesion of them; i.e. would a specific church be Indult? or would a church have modern and Indult services at different times? I guess that IF the TC article is better developed to distinquish between tC and TC (e.g. SSPX) AND Indults do not have a separate identity apart from tC then I would support merge. Am I making sense? --Justanother 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Indult Catholics are traditionalists, but not all Traditionalists are Indult Catholics. The indultists are more than simply traditionalists because they somehow manage to keep in full communion with Rome as well as having access to the Pre Vatican II sacraments. It is a large movement taking in the FSSP, Una Voce, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, Latin Mass Society, etc, etc. It's not far off an ill advised attempt to state that SSPX were sedevacantist because they were saying rude things about the Pope. JASpencer 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying that the Indult movement is not far off a movement to catagorize SSPX as sedevacantist? --Justanother 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Few indultists would say that the SSPX is close to sedevacantism. JASpencer 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Indult" Catholics are a group of traditionalists that some radical traditionalists are trying to cut off. CLassic POV fork. Dominick (TALK) 13:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I started the article and I attend an NO Mass (although I sometimes go to indult Masses). I certainly did not fork the article for the reason you're insinuating. I would like to point you to WP:AGF and WP:POINT. JASpencer 14:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize if it is taken as an insult. It was not meant that way. Catholics who attend an indult are not less traditional that the other groups in the main article. Dominick (TALK) 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1&oldid=1081097142"