Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - no content, duplicates Template:Certainty. - Mike Rosoft 11:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty series[edit]

The page is nothing but an article form of {{certainty}}, and was linked from there. Was tempted to speedy, but decided against. Circeus 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Content is vague and unencyclopedic. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nomination. Doesn't make sense as an article - it's just a list of vague definitions of certain topics, put under "Legends". I wonder why. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to lack of context. So tagged. MER-C 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no encyclopedic context. Atlantis Hawk 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. In fact, none of the list are actually 'legends'.SkierRMH 07:09, 12 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 keep as no support for deletion and nomination is lukewarm. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milemarker (band)[edit]

The band in question is sometimes difficult to perform notability searches on, and its popularity has only been weakly asserted in its article. The notability of the band has been argued according to four criteria:

A Google search using the search terms "milemarker", "music", and the requirement of having at least one of the band's past record labels in the results (excluding the badly-searched label name "Eyeball"). This gave me about 44,800 results as of September 1, 2006 and 39,000 as of November 11.
The Alexa ranking for their Jade Tree Records label, whose website's ranking was 273,376 as of November 11, 2006.
Milemarker has toured nationally and internationally [1], which may mean they pass according to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #3.
Lastly, label notability. Jade Tree Records has an established mainspace article that asserts notability and has notable artists signed. By extension, it was asserted that Milemarker should be acceptable as per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Musicians and ensembles bullet #4:

“

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).

”

Another Milemarker label, Eyeball Records, "have released albums by artists such as Thursday, My Chemical Romance and Murder by Death" (according to the label's article).

Does the community feel any of these assertions are under-supported or insufficient in proving notability? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep this article, Milemaker has toured and played major venues throughout the world. They might not be MTV material, but they are very well known within the indepedent music community, and media. Missvain 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If they pass the policy for bands, then we have to keep it. Atlantis Hawk 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability has definitely been established. Ben W Bell talk 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to AllMusicGuide's listing (not a perfect source, but moderately reliable, and a much better resource than ghits), they've "toured Europe and the U.S. (twice)". I'd call that independent confirmation; they're notable enough for us. Xtifr _tälk 10:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. verifiable. Tulkolahten 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since nom effectively abstained, and opinion seems unanimous, this may qualify for speedy-keep. Xtifr _tälk 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK 1, notability is obvious ST47Talk 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets the policy for bands and is notable. Bakilas 00:06, 13 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 Speedily deleted as a {{db-repost}} of material taken from [2]. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 4 refers. (aeropagitica) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final fantasy x 2 secrets[edit]

Now, I know I said that I hate nominating for AFD right away, but sometimes it's obvious. This page is an obvious violation of WP:NOT a game guide. That's what the page is though. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I want to point out that it is a full text dump from www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rlid=73844&rid=68256 (plus a header). That is why I think it could be speedy deleted due G12 (even if it is questionable that these walkthroughs can be copyrighted). Also, note that the user created two pages, Final fantasy x 2 secrets and Final Fantasy x-2 secrets. -- ReyBrujo 00:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the... ? Why is this still here? ... discospinster _talk 00:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have also directed the article Final Fantasy x-2 secrets here, as it is the same text. ... discospinster _talk 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The editor has over-ridden what is, I feel, a fully valid {{speedy}} tag.--Anthony.bradbury 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nice ASCII art, but belongs on the game's numerous fansites - not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a game manual. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:53, 12 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. DS 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torax[edit]

A single server in a minor web-based RPG. This isn't even done for World of Warcraft: Realm (World of Warcraft) lists WOW servers, but doesn't go into any further detail. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Game servers do not deserve their own Wikipedia article. Shouldn't this deserve a {{speedy}} tag? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would if there were any applicable criteria. I don't think there are, though, so it might as well go through a quick AfD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It dosen't seem notable enough. Atlantis Hawk 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. nn, etc. SkierRMH 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this can be speedied, there are no applicable criteria at WP:CSD ST47Talk 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose A7 applies ST47Talk 12:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per all ST47Talk 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot believe someone thinks a single game server is notable. --Nehwyn 14:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. —The Gr e at Llama ^talk 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable.---^ॐ S e adog ^ॐ 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable and an ad. Spinach Dip 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 00:28, 13 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. --Core desat 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary day[edit]

Delete. Non-notable film made by college students. It's not even finished yet, according to the article's author. No sources can be found to vouch for it. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not completed - not even a link to show a clip of it. Vague plot line, and no indication of notability that will make this stand out among the millions of amateur videos out there. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main problem of this article is that it is unverifiable. Thus, it fails to meet one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. A google search proves to be unhelpful as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it has a budget of 1 Euro and hasn't sold a copy or been shown in a professional theatre, it can't be notable.Atlantis Hawk 04:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Meets "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" criteria standards, as well as nn, and others as above
Delete per nom. —The Gr e at Llama ^talk 14:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nominator. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, an ad, and contains little to no real information. Spinach Dip 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Siva1979. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 8:04 Am ET Nov 13 2006
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 14 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. DS 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Liberation Army[edit]

Questionable notability, no other references to this organisation on the Internet. Cordless Larry 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 6 ghits, all of which are on one website. Unverifiable. MER-C 01:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Seems like something made up on a whim by some "activists" in Bergen. An organization established only a week ago, too. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uff da! Searching on the Norwegian name gets exactly 1 ghit: the Wikipedia article. I understand that Bergeners are suffering under the oppressive thumb of the local lutefisk barons, but I can't see them launching an armed rebellion, at least not yet. Stryke ut Tubezone 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Ixfd64 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as possible hoax. --Dennisthe2 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not even a good Joke Page candidate SkierRMH 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ridiculous, WP:NFT. Punkmorten 08:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is this? —The Gr e at Llama ^talk 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stryk den met all hast. Something created on 2 November this year and impossible to verify. Either it's a complete hoax or completely non-notable. Created by "CheBuevara" (well, at least now we know the meaning of the B). Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable, unverifiable, and possible hoax. Spinach Dip 20:44, 12 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 keep as a vandal AfD nomination by Railer 654, impersonating an editor of good standing. (aeropagitica) 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday[edit]

We all live through this day on a weekly basis. I find no need for valuable resource space to be wasted here. --Sango 123 (e) 01:55, 12 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. DS 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White thunder[edit]

No sources or links for this band. The information may appear to be false. Peter O. (Talk) 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a {{hoax}} about a non-notable band. Strawberry picking contest indeed. (aeropagitica) 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article is NOT false. The death of a former band member was from a bar fight and it is not certain what the fight originated from. The two rivaled each other in every sense and the murder was not just over a strawberry picking contest. Death is nothing to joke around with and we would not do such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)
Delete — Delete as a hoax, and even if it wasn't one, it'd be non-notable. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not so much as a hoax, but as pure teenage-boy silliness. Band, please check out the guideline: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. After reviewing the myspace page, ~~maybe preteen silliness?~~ Hard to tell. Darkspots 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my accusation of "preteen silliness." That was churlish, and I apologize. I stand by the rest of my comment, in light of the photographs of extremely thin young men on the band's myspace page. Darkspots 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ White Thunder is not a story made up in school one day. If this band was imaginary how would we have recorded songs? White Thunder is a real band, and a real story. The history of the band is quite interesting and the band is fairly well-known regionaly. This is an example of racism toward hispanics and death metal in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)

~~Keep~~ So because they are "extremly thin" means they can not participate in legitimate bands? I will admit I can understand why you may be concerned abou the seriousness of the band, the bands age has gotten younder considerably, avereage age being 16. The band has also taken a less serious route to music, but how does that exempt them from being a legit artist? Ever hear of Tenacious D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery dragon (talk • contribs)
Comment you can only give one keep, delete, etc vote in any one discussion. You can change your mind, though. (aeropagitica) 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified original research. Almost certainly made up in school one day. The band's been around since 1988, but the average age of its members is 16... interesting. The single worst attempt at sock puppetry ever (above), hasn't really helped. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - and note that the only Keep votes are from the creator of the article! Not even a creative WP:SOCK; also fits categories of WP:NFT, WP:V and WP:NFT
Delete - It might be real, but that doesn't make it notable. Also note that it is impossible to be racist toward death metal, because death metal is not a race. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out--I don't feel particularly racist about anyone or anything. I'm definitely not racist about death metal. Darkspots 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable teen band (if it even exists). Block user for amazingly incompetent sockpuppetry. --Charlene 08:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Burn, burn with fire, lots of it. Delete, obviously. Moreschi 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AMG's got nothing, and AMG has listings for bands so obscure that their mothers have barely heard of them! But don't block the user. Single-account "sock-puppetry" deserves an appropriate punishment—limit him to one account from now on. :) Xtifr _tälk 10:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Given Mystery dragon's comments above it may be a violation of WP:AUTO as well. Hut 8.5 18:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I'm racist towards bea- I mean Latinos. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And I would remind the author that a false accusation of racism is racist in itself. Resolute 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could probably have been speedy-deleted, IMO. It's an obvious hoax - and even if we assumed that everything here was true, by the article's own terms this band fails WP:Band. --TheOtherBob 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant hoax. Worst attempt at sockpuppetry and vote cheating EVER! MartinDK 12:14, 13 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. --Core desat 01:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Second Law and Scaling Invariance[edit]

Smells like original research to me --Xorkl000 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research if sources and references cannot be provided. Only Ghit was to this article. (aeropagitica) 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It reads exactly like a scientific paper. Unreferenced. MER-C 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete as original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Make sure the original post has a hardcopy, so this research isn't lost. 2:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Delete per above. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 03:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write and Merge Could possibly be re-written and merged as subpage to Newton's Second Law, but needs further references to add there.SkierRMH 07:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally WP:OR. --Nehwyn 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original Research. Spinach Dip 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone should make a Wikisciencejournal for the constant OR articles like this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably original research, That info may be as true as me saying air is green in other galaxies. Possible, but highly unlikely. -- → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 8:01 am ET, November 18, 2006
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:08, 14 November 2006
Delete per the nomination. Certainly reads like original research, and it is unreferenced. Verkhovensky 20:02, 15 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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu Brahmins[edit]

Non notable, contains information already found in Brahmin. Sfacets 02:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Appears to be a genuine topic, needs elaboration and copyediting though. Westenra 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with/to Brahmin. Keeping the POV out of this article seems to be something that people aren't interested in, and un-doing the changes a few people have made has been a chore, to say the least. I'm inclined to say that Telugu Brahmins is little more than a self-serving fluff piece for a very small subsection of people. That said, we need an article about the Brahmin caste, and I don't see the harm in having a Telugu subsection in it. Kevin 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article needs help, but the subject appears to be notable and distinct. Telugu Brahmins are one of the linguistic classifications of Brahmins described in Classification of Brahmins. Compare Kannada Brahmins. There's a corresponding category (Category:Telugu_Brahmins) and quite a few sub-groupings (e.g. Niyogi, Aaraama_Dravidulu) with their own articles. An argument for deletion or merge should make the case, with arguments grounded in the subject matter, that the article does not represent something legitimate or noteworthy. The fact that someone edited in redundant text calls for remedial editing, not AfD. -- Shunpiker 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm still not seeing where this crosses over from an arbitrary subgroup, and in to something notable or distinct. For all intents and purposes, this is no different than an article entitled "French Catholics in the United States" (e.g. a redirect to a more general cultural page), or "White-collar people from the United Kingdom who speak Welsh". Kevin 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: With all due respect, does anybody familiar with the subject matter agree? There's a real risk here that people who don't understand the cultural distinctions (I include myself) may undo the work of people who do with broad-brush analogies that don't apply. There are 80 million Telugu speakers. We're not talking about a small group of people. There aren't that many Catholics in all of the United States, let alone in North Carolina. Or people in North Carolina, for that matter. Or Wales. Or the entire United Kingdom. According to the article, the Telugu Brahmin tradition outdates the United States by some 500-700 years. Is it so hard to believe that a people speaking a distinct language might develop a recognizable tradition over such a period of time? -- Shunpiker 04:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've edited out the most obvious redundancies with Brahmin. P.P.S. According to this article, Brahmins make up 2% of the population of Andhra Pradesh. Take 2% of 66 million (native Telugu speakers), 75 million (population of AP), or 80 million (Telugu speakers), you get about a million and a half people.[reply]
Keep. This appears to be an article about a regional caste/sub-caste similar to Khatris. I think it can be kept as it relates to a distinct group of a distinct ethnicity. Nlsanand 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Lots if not most of the content can already be found in the Brahmin article. This is not a sub-group of Brahmins in that they do not have a different belief system from any other Brahmin group. This is a sub group of a sub group, and doesn't merit it's own article, unless more unique content can be provided. Alot of Brahmin subgroups have articles dedicated to nothing but a list of surnames, or "famous Brahmins" whichprovide no information on the subject, and are generally unsourced. Aaraama_Dravidulu is an example of this. These articles should be amalgamated, if not in one article, then at least not disparate and vaguely connected sub categories. Sfacets 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, an argument in terms of Brahminism instead of Catholicism! Thank you! If the subgroups don't merit their own articles, perhaps they could be merged up into Telugu Brahmins? Then that article will have more unique content and Wikipedia will have fewer disparate and vaguely connected artices. -- Shunpiker 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Brahmin I agree with Sfactes, we don't have an article about Catholicism in Durham, North Carolina, do we? ST47Talk 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the main Brahmin article per above comments. It's not necessary to create subarticles for each region. --musicpvm 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Cleanup per Nlsanand. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a very distinct and historic caste. --Oakshade 06:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "When in doubt ..." -- Simon Cursitor 08:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a legitimate article about a notable topic. Needs some rephrasing and citations, but is far from unsalvageable. --Czj 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid and encyclopedic article about a distinct and historic caste. RFerreira 06:33, 17 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. --Core desat 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.T. Grimm[edit]

Non-notable band Missvain 03:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND. Hello32020 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, this band seems to not have any press except for this rockzone.com review [3], not much notability. The label listed in their article, Disgraceland Records, does not have any mention of them on their website. Without information about their former albums, it's pretty hard to figure out which ones were released by Disgraceland and which were not. None of the bands or artists listed on Disgraceland Records's website appears to have a Wikipedia article, so it's difficult not to conclude they fail the "more important indie label" test of Wikipedia:Notability (music). No other evidence of P.T. Grimm's notability seemed to be present in a google search. Darkspots 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; it does fail to meet WP:BAND and does not have much notabilitySkierRMH 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND ST47Talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND. --Nehwyn 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, etc. Spinach Dip 20:50, 12 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, per WP:V - material that doesn't meet it shouldn't be in one article or another. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Turkel[edit]

A webmaster of a online "ministry" and author of one self-published book. Arbusto 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries which is currently a redirect to Turkel. The ministry meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't this be a "Move" instead? Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, technically yes. The point in calling it a merge was that the article should primarily be about the ministry with the merged material being, well merged material. JoshuaZ 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. While I am unfamiliar with the Christian apologetics movement, it seems clear that the article doesn't meet WP:V. The only sources sited are either Web sites belonging to the subject or his critics. What we need is a few neutral, unbiased sources to establish notability. As of now, the article fails to assert that subject and the ministry are adequately notable. Caknuck 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does the ministry meet WP:Web? What are all the non-trivial sources? How is it an independent web site? If someone can improve the article, and make it obvious why this is notable, I have no problem with it staying. If not, delete it and the ministry entry. I don't see anyone writing scholarly pieces about Turkel or the Ministry, but again, absence of proof is not proof of absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs)
Keep or at least Merge to Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Holding is clearly very well known to both Christians and antitheists. 58.162.2.122 08:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There was RECENTLY a vote on this whole matter and the vote was to keep. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/JP_Holding

Also: 1) The leading atheist website www.infidels.org lists 40 Christian apologists and JP Holding is listed among them (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html)

2) Next, well known Christians have spoken favorably of his ministry (if memory serves Hank Hanegraaff" The Bible answer man" on the radio spoke well of Holding for example). Here is a link to one of Holdings articles at his website: When apologetics was evangelism by JP Holding

3) Many well known atheists disparage Holding and these atheists are listed among Wikipedia subject headings. What better recommendation of your relevance can you get than the public disparagement of those who oppose your viewpoint!

I cite:

G.A. Wells (see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/g_a_wells/holding.html )

Farrell Till (see: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/jftill/turkey.html )

Holding returns the disparagement here:

G.A. Wells http://www.tektonics.org/TK-W.html

Farrell Till http://www.tektonics.org/TK-T.html

4) Even the www.infidels.org website has mentioned Holding in rather favorable terms.

I cite:

"Updated the author page of Kyle J. Gerkin with an added link to the "Scholarly Diplomacy Series." (Off Site)

Kyle J. Gerkin and J.P. Holding amicably engage each other in an and ongoing discussion of their differing worldviews. The goal is to tear down the wall of antipathy that too often divides Christians and skeptics, so as to foster a respectful understanding of those differences."

taken from: http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/new/2003/may2003.shtml

5) Holding's website gets a lot off traffic and his articles often get high rankings on the search engines as many people link to them.

6) Holding has been published.

7) I know that many evangelical ministers are aware of Holding. I spoke to one last month and he is aware of Holding. ken 16:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

- Comment first of all, if over a year ago is "recently" then yes, there was a "recent" vote on this. Second of all, due to full disclosure provisions, I will note that ken created this article, and is the main contributor.--Andrew c 16:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also want to note that the nominator, possibly after people suggested a merge, did an out of process blanking and redirect of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. Sorry, you can't bypass AfD by redirecting articles (if that was the intent). --Andrew c 16:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you mean Ken, not the nominator (me). It was he who redirected it. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Additional comment. A correction to Andrew's post. I did create the article but about half the article was created by other Wikipedians by their additions to the article because JP Holding is well known among many atheist apologists and Christian apologists. ken 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
    - I apologize if I mischaracterized ken. I just wanted to make sure AfD Wikietiquette was being applied (regarding Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.).--Andrew c 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JoshuaZ. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Impressive Guy. Well referenced and presented. nascarfan1 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Also note that the user account is User:Nascarfan1 while the user page is at User:NASCARfan1. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How does this meet WP:WEB (for the merge people) and how does this meet WP:BIO for the keep people? So we have 3 votes for k two are new users and one is the original author. I should have speedied this as it doesn't assert notability. Arbusto 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If you ask me, this article fails WP:V, and the entire article seems to exist in order to promote JP Holding - not to present it in an encyclopedic manner. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy is only notable inside his own head. Laurence Boyce 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable and verifiable third party mainstream references presented to establish notability. Edison 05:38, 13 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. --Core desat 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thurmond[edit]

NN local politician - crz crztalk 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — City council members are not inherently notable, and in answer to the questions posed on the article's talk page, "He will probably move up in the Democratic party, be mayor or who knows in the future" is not a very good answer for the 100 year test. Furthermore, the article's grammar is quite bad - "where is attended college"? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also fails the WP:NOT#CBALL test. SkierRMH 07:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable political figure who has a minor chance of moving up in his political party. Spinach Dip 20:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete egads, no sources, and unlikelt to pass even if there were sources.-- danntm ^T _C 23:20, 12 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. Dakota 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Islands Foundation for the Performing Arts[edit]

NN org - crz crztalk 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — It seems quite well-known locally, but ultimately isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - verifiability problems, 92 non-wiki ghits, nothing particularly reliable. MER-C 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also WP:V, could also be WP:Corp or WP:COMPANY
Keep. I added some referencees from the Kingston Whig-Standard. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of those sources only say that they're receiving funding from someone or other. Is there anything a little less trivial? I'd like to keep this, but I don't feel comfortable voting to do so in the state it's in now. Shimeru 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of substantial enough coverage to establish notability, as pointed out by Shimeru. Sandstein 06:49, 15 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Film[edit]

Non-Notable band Missvain 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Speedy Delete~~Wouldn't their song being placed on the soundtrack of the FIFA 06 video game be counted as notability?~~ OK, my objection withdrawn. S-man64 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No, one (or more) song on a soundtrack doesn't mean notabliity. Does not meet WP:BAND criteria (criteria for musicians and ensembles). Put as footnote on FIFA 06 SkierRMH 07:47, 12 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, CSD-A7. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

drugzone[edit]

super non-notable band Missvain 04:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability except for the "Discography" section. While we're at it, I've prodded their only recording, a demo called Let our music be your drug. MER-C 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No assertion of notability, and nothing links to this page. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and they look rubbish. Phileas 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject (A7). Absolutely no assertion of notability and they fail WP:BAND by miles. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, again, does not meet WP:BAND, 1st criteria. No notability...SkierRMH 07:51, 12 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--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Indian Family[edit]

Per Talk:Save_Indian_Family#Article_orginally_submitted_as_part_of_MyWikiBiz_paid_PR_blitz, this article was a MyWikiBiz creation. Its tone is that of an advertisement and its sources are unreliable. Durova^Charge! 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup:The article is horrible, but the subject is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The sources are definitely reliable, such as CNN and Indian Express, both notable news sources.However, POV cleanup is needed.Hkelkar 04:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "CNN" source actually looks like the IBN part of CNN-IBN, which is not quite the same as CNN. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless authoritative sources showing encyclopedic notability of this organization (not the issues) can be found. At the moment, there is no substantive evidence or even claim in the article or in sources provided for encyclopedic notability. Coverage by news sources, even mainstream channels with international profile, does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Authoritative sources need to be provided showing that this is an organization of substantive scope and base that actually is a social movement, not just that a group of people have formed a society which relates to a set of notable issues. At the moment the article is just a soapbox for this organization's issues, and does not show the encyclopedic notability of the organization itself. Bwithh 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability of organization is not proven, the Indian men's movement could be mentioned in the article Men's rights which seems to be US-centric at the moment Bwithh 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No encyclopedic notability whatsoever. Crabapplecove 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup:The subject is extremely relevant, though the article needs some refinement and objectivity. India is currently debating the new Domestic Violence Prevention legislation and such topics definitely provide a prespective. The article explores the plight of an abused minority whose existence is ignored by the mainstream Indian society.

--Landoflakes 13:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite- as per Landoflakes. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editors who have contributed might want to author some information into other general domestic violence related articles. •Elomis• 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to see greater objectivity, but the group appears genuine and moderately well-known in India. WMMartin 18:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough of pandering to Femofascism's & the 'Liberal' (sic!) Mafia's censorship of opposition to their criminality and misandry, whether VAWA or the DVA. My Wikidness 13:38, 17 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.

This true story in india , so article is must keep it - Vina Ra ([email protected]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Meegan[edit]

Article is about a high school athlete with no assertion of noteability beyond local high school activities ElKevbo 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable athlete, delete! Missvain 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think {{prod}} might have covered this one, but it's good you brought it to AfD just to be sure. riana_dzasta 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it could be speedied but since I wasn't 100% sure I opted to run this through AfD. I wouldn't blink an eye if the closing admin/'crat/whoever-closes-AfDs speedies this deletion. --ElKevbo 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, non notability.SkierRMH 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tulkolahten 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ST47Talk 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant vanity. Non-notable high school jock who probably doesn't need a bigger ego than he already has. Wavy G 15:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete a no-question-vanity article, delete away.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 20:59, 12 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. --Core desat 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandient[edit]

Is this notable? It looks to me like promotional material. Any ideas? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. No coverage by news sources (at least, GNews didn't find anything). No third-party published materials. On the other hand, it's written in a reasonably neutral manner, and it seems notable enough within Romania. Weak Keep, I guess. Delete per MER-C's findings. No prejudice against recreation if Ro-Wiki consider it notable enough for an article. riana_dzasta 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no equivalent in the romanian wikipedia. MER-C 05:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no question then. riana_dzasta 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also does not meet WP:CORP Criteria.SkierRMH 07:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company does not seem notable enough, most likely a promotional article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An advertisement. Also non-notable to boot. Spinach Dip 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not notable enough - delete per all above. Reads as an advertisement. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:21, 13 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 - Yomangani ^talk 01:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfade Records[edit]

Non-notable record label Missvain 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if they sign on somebody well-known, it might be worth considering. riana_dzasta 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... also does not meet WP:CORP and WP:NMG Criteria. SkierRMH 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable advertisement. Spinach Dip 21:02, 12 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 Birmingham Derby. riana_dzasta 08:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second City Derby[edit]

The exact same article is covered in more detail in Birmingham derby. 'Second City Derby' and 'Birmingham derby' are both the same thing, this page isn't required. I'd merge them, but this contains nothing that isn't already in Birmingham derby. Phileas 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, delete. After that, someone should move Birmingham derby to Birmingham Derby - I don't want to do it right now, just in case it messes anything up. riana_dzasta 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and redirected it to Birmingham derby as a possible search term. Birmingham Derby (capped) also brings up the Birmingham derby page. Shimeru 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this, then? I'll wait 20 minutes. riana_dzasta 07:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no reason why not, since nobody's objected. I'm not an admin, though, if you were asking me. ^_^ Shimeru 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's unambiguous enough for a non-admin to do so. :) riana_dzasta 08:16, 12 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. --Core desat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Wai Chan[edit]

This article appears to be vanity material according to its history. In particular, please note the userpage content and contributions of Ming Chan (talk · contribs). Takeel 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo-er. I suggest delete and recreate from external sources, since he does seem reasonably notable... I'm not too sure about this one. riana_dzasta 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to verify the Emmy. Would you happen to know of any good ways to verify besides Google and the website at www.emmys.org? --Takeel 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - If he's not there, it's probably not real. Possible hoax. riana_dzasta 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 22 non-wiki ghits. You'd expect more from someone who's won an Emmy. Yes, a rewrite is necessary but I doubt the presence of reliable external sources. MER-C 06:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Emmy doesn't seem to exist. There is an award for news or documentaries in new media, but it was awarded to washingtonpost.com for a Katrina documentary. A Google search for "Ming Wai Chan" -wikipedia brings up nothing whatsoever. (This could possibly be a romanization issue, though, admittedly.) Shimeru 07:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Officially emmy site, as well as another relatively complete fan listing shows no mention of this name or close variations. Unverifiable.SkierRMH 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 42 Ghits is not-notable: if he'd got an Emmy there would be more: and googling his name + Emmy get precisely zilch. Clever hoax: nice attempt to scam Wikipedia; but Wikipedia is cleverer than you are. Moreschi 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete provide official links about Emmy Award or it is a hoax. Tulkolahten 10:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Folantin 15:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity and hoax. Spinach Dip 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really just SPAM for the fellow's new consulting company disgused as a vanity article. OfficeGirl 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:07, 14 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 keep. John Lake 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer Online[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable game. Google does not reveal any WP:RS that would indicate that it passes WP:WEB. Leuko 05:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:SOFTWARE applies to this game. --Aquatics 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the notability requirements are essentially the same, it doesn't pass that either. Leuko 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable game, pretty high Alexa rank for something like this. A simple english Google search is not enough to establish that this does not have any reliable sources - the game seems to be primarily played in China. --- RockMFR 08:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article perhaps requires cleanup, I think the game is notable enough to deserve a page. As it seems to be based in China, perhaps that's where the sources are? Ale_Jrb ^talk 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & cleanup, per RockMFR. Alexa ranking of just under 8000, not far behind Blizzard's ranking of about 2500. 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete, will change to keep if someone shows reliable sources. I can't find any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup per Ale_Jrb --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because it "seems to be a non-notable game" to one person doesn't mean that it is. The nominator needs to provide a better explaination to delete it then just a gut instinct. I vote keep since I don't see evidence to the game be not notable. --Pinkkeith 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the reason that I called it not notable is that I didn't see any evidence in the article it was notable. It wasn't "gut instinct," but a lack of WP:RS. Leuko 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's a good start but it definitely needs more references besides the official website/forums (although most references may be in Chinese, and if that's the case, what's the policy for references that are in a foreign language to the native language for this particular Wikipedia which is English?) --Rambutaan 00:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - will also change to keep if anyone shows reliable sources. At present it's a game guide (NOT a game guide?) and little else. There's not one third party reference? MidgleyDJ 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also add that I dont think notability is asserted in the article. Also if it's going to stay then much of the fancruft needs to be removed. MidgleyDJ 07:15, 15 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. --Core desat 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Custom Search Engine Enhancement Page[edit]

WP is not a Soapbox, nor a publisher of original thought. Also was prodded and prod tag was removed with note saying I should explain why the article should be deleted (the prod tag I used said "Is wikipedia a complaint department? I think not.") Bladeswin | Talk to me | 06:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tubezone 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the contents of the article and its talk page, this clearly represents a failure to understand what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a free web host provided for the convenience of the public. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of free webhosting services out there. This is not one of them. Resolute 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a webhosting service nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Shimeru 07:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF is this?! --71.216.9.26 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an article; it's a request for enhancements on Google. This doesn't belong here. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Google if notable. Tulkolahten 10:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Delete ST47Talk 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If not then delete. Tulkolahten 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The page is not even an attempt at an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try that before putting an RfD tag on the article. Contributor removed tags. - Bladeswin | Talk to me | 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia AT ALL. Spinach Dip 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close and delete per WP:SNOW by now. Sandstein 06:15, 13 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. --Core desat 01:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick RPG[edit]

Non-notable web game. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB, Google doesn't find any WP:RS. Most of article seems to be a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stick rpg. --- RockMFR 08:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 07:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Phileas 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually seems a little bit of spam to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nehwyn 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not particularly notable, which is a shame- I wish more people played it, because it's a very fun game. -- Kicking222 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Actually, this game is fairly popular - and I've played it myself. However, this article smacks of fandom and I don't think the game is notable enough to merit an article. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references proving notability. --Elonka 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A game-guide of a semi-popular ~~article~~. Spinach Dip 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant game. Spinach Dip 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is quite a shame that it doesn't have any sources. Seeing as everyone and their grandma has played it. I think it is very notable, but since that can't be proven, I suppose its a deleting time. Forget that Wiki policy states to use common sense, and everyone knowing about the game probably falls under common sense. Thats ok. It goes bye-bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oggleboppiter (talk • contribs) .
Keep and tag requesting references I see no explanation why this is not a notable game. Yet, I do see a lace of references. The article is clearing not a gaming guide, it just describes the game. A gaming guide is a guide that gives you clues how to solve and complete the game, this article clearly does not. --Pinkkeith 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've played this game before, but this game doesn't seem to have a very high impact on gaming society unlike, say, Madness Interactive, which also happens to not have an article.--WaltCip 17:01, 13 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. Dakota 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy of Silence[edit]

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable film failing the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Part of the Conspiracy Cruft Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement of The Franklin Coverup Scandal, which was completely discredited 17 years ago and wholely a creature of the blogosphere. A Google News search for the film results in ZERO results. Morton Devonshire^Yo 06:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is unreleased, too. MER-C 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wow. Just wow. delete per nom.--Tbeatty 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never released, making it kind of hard to claim notability. Brimba 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, didn't this already fail an AFD before? The film is notable because of the powerful special interests that succeeded in getting it pulled from television. Joe1141 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased film. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people who think black helicopters are following them. --Charlene 08:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, Morton, and typical to provide no mention of or link to the previous AFD discussion. Thanks to Joe for remembering this. Also, there are no "requirements" to Wikipedia:Notability (films) because it's not a guideline because it has no consensus. Finally, Google News only covers about the last month of "news". Since this is a 1994 production, it would be rather stunning if it were considered news 12 years later. Derex 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to scandal article or Delete. Fails WP:V, has no meaningful cites, and no signs of any reliable sources. It was a stub at its last AfD, and its still a stub now, there's no evidence that anyone can or will expand it. The keep arguments at the previous AfD seem to mostly boil down to "I've heard of this conspiracy theory, it must be notable". "I've heard of it" is not a reliable source. Standards are higher now, and it's time for this sad little stub of an article to go bye-bye. Xtifr _tälk 11:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no WP:RS and WP:V sources. After the last AFD there should have been a rush to bring the article up to snuff, however I am sure someone will promise to do this again and still not. Our policies trump all, and WP:RS and WP:V are quite important ones. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 15:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NF, per nom. = Crockspot 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - responding to Joe1141 above - I would say that if there's any evidence that the decision to pull the film generated significant controversy at the time by all means let us know about it - but without any references to such a controversy all I see is an unaired made-for-tv documentary which certainly isn't notable. GabrielF 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF and nom. --Strothra 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreleased film. How many unpublished manuscripts, unvoiced thoughts and unreleased films are there in the world? As for the article, how does an "unreleased film" have a release date? Shouldn't it be an "unrelease date?" If it ever becomes notable, recreate the article.Edison 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirect. The article was already merged to a new draft of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article, which is a grand merger of all the articles on people/books/etc. mentioned in the whole conspiracy theory. That draft was being prepared before this AfD was opened; it has now been installed as the main article. The idea is to redirect all the minor articles, which had been subject to all sorts of conspiracy cruft, bizarre allegations, biased and weak sourcing, to the main article which adheres strictly to well-sourced facts. The film gets a couple of sentences there, which is about what it's worth. So unless there are strenuous objections I'm just going to perform the redirect along with the others (there are 3 or 4 total) and save us waiting out the AfD. Please see Talk:Franklin Coverup Scandal for the discussion and detail. --MCB 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At present the Franklin Coverup Scandal article appears to referense this movie -- if that were to remainthe case, then I would "vote" for a redirect. If, however, the FCS reference is simply a place-holder which will be deleted as soon as this article is, then my view would be that this article should remain, as a means for future researchers to know what the film was, what it was (allegedly) about, and that it was never aired. -- Simon Cursitor 08:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much discussion has gone into merging the associated articles into a single one that would pass any reasonable muster. As MCB said above, the current revision of the Franklin Coverup Scandal article is working towards that even as we speak. So I would agree with you in that I hope people do not choose to delete it once the merge is complete.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, the reference in Franklin Coverup Scandal is not a place-holder; it's meant to be the "permanent" (well, as permanent as anything on Wikipedia) destination of the material on the film. --MCB 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and what not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin Coverup Scandal, as text is already merged.--Rosicrucian 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect. The phrase "conspiracy of silence" is potentially too common, IMHO, to be used as a redirect to any individual incident. Practically all conspiracies involve a hell of a lot of silence, in the rare cases where they actually exist. --Aaron 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per NuclearZer0. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:25, 16 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff[edit]

Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But needs a major rewrite. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 07:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a notable game. --- RockMFR 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean it up. --humblefool ® 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, nearly as notable as Maplestory. A clean up tag has now been placed in the top of the article. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Judging from the number of GHits, the game may be notable. Still, the article fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE because of lack of sources. --Nehwyn 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup — Keep as it's a very popular game. I've actually heard of this one, and have friends who play it. Needs sources, however, as Nehwyn stated. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Does read like a game guide. ~~Will be happy to reconsider if it's sourced and cleanup begins.~~ Shimeru 23:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that the award's been found. Shimeru 06:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Don't give up on it that easily. We put a lot of work into it, and admit it's too much like a guide. But tell us how to fix it instead of throwing all our work into the drain. Note the B-rank on the talk page, whoever put that doesn't think it's hopeless. Oubliette 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'll admit that I can't find any reputable reviews on it, but I do believe it is much more notable in Korea and the Philipinnes. I also spent a lot of time on the article in the past, rewritting a lot of content located above the Classes section, thus I'm a little biased. I was refraining from voting but looking at the votes now, there doesn't seem to be a strong support for deleting. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep According to a Financial Release (http://corp.163.com/news_eng/040803/040803_2269.html), Flyff was "Voted as an award-winning game by South Korea's Ministry of Culture in June 2004," meeting "Online Content" Notability guidelines per the second criteria. And as someone who has never played it, I personally found this a decent article to learn more about Flyff. However, it is written like an official guide. The "Versions" and "Updates" sections, as well as the first part of "Flying," are good examples of material that belongs here. A lot of the other material needs to be scrapped or changed dramatically--for Game Mechanics in particular, the focus should be on how unique mechanics affect players and their experience. Blue Crest 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the "major award" criterion, but needs a major cleanup (and the source mentioned here cited in the article). The article needs to summarize the game, not go into every detail. Seraphimblade 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as stated several times, it needs clean up badly.--Niroht 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commenters. Like many articles on Wikipedia, this one needs cleaning up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 23:02, 14 November 2006
Keep I think the nomination is a bit bogus. I hope there isn't a hidden agenda. Hu 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:07, 15 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 and add to List of songs about AfD's that were closed as Keep. Per Canley's analysis, renomination of poorly devised/maintained indvidual lists should still be ok, but mass deletion doesn't seem to fly. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about drugs[edit]

Arbitary, unmaintainable, incomplete and therefore useless listcruft. There is a precedent for deleting lists of songs, see here. MER-C 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated is every single list listed here, for the same reasons. MER-C 07:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the list as some people have missed it (myself included) --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Birmingham, List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama, List of songs about California, List of songs about Chicago, List of songs about Detroit, List of songs about London, List of songs about Los Angeles, List of songs about Manchester, List of songs about Melbourne, List of songs about New York City, List of songs about Pakistan, List of songs about Ronald Reagan, List of songs about Seattle, List of songs about Sydney, List of songs about Vietnam, List of songs about World War II, List of songs about animals, List of songs about astrology, List of songs about automobiles, List of songs about being alone, List of songs about bipolar disorder, List of songs about childhood, List of songs about children, List of songs about cocaine, List of songs about computer and video games, List of songs about computer games,List of songs about criminals, List of songs about death, List of songs about disasters, List of songs about disease, List of songs about divorce, List of songs about dogs, List of songs about drinking, List of songs about drugs, List of songs about drugs other than heroin, List of songs about environmental pollution, List of songs about famous people, List of songs about famous people (other than politicians), List of songs about fear of death, List of songs about fictitious bands or musicians, List of songs about firearms and weapons, List of songs about friendship, List of songs about hair, List of songs about heroin, List of songs about holidays, List of songs about homosexuality, List of songs about killers, List of songs about marijuana, List of songs about masturbation, List of songs about mental illness, List of songs about money, List of songs about mothers, List of songs about new york, List of songs about new york city, List of songs about nuclear war, List of songs about nyc, List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley, List of songs about other drugs, List of songs about politicians, List of songs about prostitution, List of songs about racism, List of songs about radio, List of songs about robots, List of songs about school, List of songs about selling out, List of songs about sex, List of songs about sleep, List of songs about suicide, List of songs about tequila, List of songs about the Vietnam War, List of songs about the end of the world, List of songs about the environment, List of songs about the environmental pollution, List of songs about the future, List of songs about the vietnam war, List of songs about video games, List of songs about war, List of songs about weather

KeepAre you kidding me? This article is probably the ONLY useful list of songs... my sister had to do a research thing for university and she had to talk about songs relating to drugs, however she knew none! If it hadn't been for this list she would have been toast. And just because it's ARBITRARY doesn't mean it's UNINTERESTING. Crazy people! 70.51.205.175 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precident. Unmaintainable list. I would suggest nominating the rest in small blocks, as there is also precident for DRV overturning mass AfDs. Resolute 07:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. Are we going to have lists for every song about love? death? politics? Keeping this leaves open the door for all lists of songs based on every conceivable subject. Furthermore, as Resolute mentions, it's absolutely unmaintainable and very open to original research. There are many, many songs that can be interpreted to be about drugs without explicitly saying so and there'd be NPOV and OR arguments about each and every one. Plus, the shear number of songs about drugs would make for a very, very long list indeed. Actually... aren't all songs about drugs ;) --The Way 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't even notcie the other nominations included; there really are lists for all those different song topics? That's... sad. This is proof that having one of these types of lists leads to having countless others that are just as random. --The Way 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable list, entirely unverified/OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christ! Delete - what a waste of space. Indiscriminate (WP:NOT), listcruft, and useless. Moreschi 09:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Language. --Nehwyn 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as list of all songs about orange, yellow, cars. Tulkolahten 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. Delete, surely this list could never be complete. Crufteh. riana_dzasta 11:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's inherently wrong with a list of songs? Of course a list like this would never be complete, and why should it be? What's the problem with having lists about all sorts of things anyway? They are actually very useful to those of us looking for songs about certain topics, though I do agree that they need to be verified somehow. Stephenjh 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate heap of info, and quite listcruft. --Nehwyn 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that these lists are helpful for people looking for songs after a specific topic. Plus lumping all the lists together is probably not the best way to do it, perhaps we could just delete the overly vague or large lists. Bakilas 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It's not useless; I have it on my watchlist because I used it once. Popular culture by topic and method makes for useful divisions to study it by, and that makes the lists valuable.--Prosfilaes 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- And I'm not sure what that list is, but you've got to list them on this page for it to be a valid AfD. Just giving us a list isn't valid.--Prosfilaes 14:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unsourced and ridiculously subjective. SteveLamacq43 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft meshach 17:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The deletion notices for all the listed articles refer to this, which appears to be a discussion about a list of songs about drugs. The arguments about how maintainable and useful the lists are would seem to me to vary by topic. I believe, for example, that the List of songs about Chicago is more encyclopedic and more feasible to maintain than a List of songs about drugs. This debate needs to be split, at LEAST, into similar groupings. --Dystopos 18:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dystopos is right. The drug list should be deleted, but I am not prepared to throw all those others into the trash as well. The criticisms stated above do not apply equally to all. -- Rob C (Alarob) 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are people looking for songs after a specific topic. perphaps only do a cleanup, the layour is screwed.

Patrick1982 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object strongly to this AfD as given; each article must be in its own AfD, or at least all the articles must be listed one by one on the AfD page.--Prosfilaes 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's long enough and is well written. It could be more informative, but I see no real reason to delete it. 2Pac 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Do not think this should be deleted as it came in useful for myself, and other reasons given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.83.1 (talk • contribs)

I have to say Keep, since you lumped every single list together, even the precious few that should be kept. Whose stupid idea was combination AfD noms? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to fling insults. -- Rob C (Alarob)
Speedy Keep as much as I loathe the concept of cruft like "List of songs about a bag of four grapes", a mass nom is not the way to go. Danny Lilithborne 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep only because I'm not convinced that all lists of songs are "unmaintainable" or unencyclopedic. 78 lists in a single nom seems a bit much, especially when 77 of them are not explicitly listed in the AfD itself, but behind a link. Shimeru 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Each and Every Last One of Them lists of songs about whatever are listcruft, unencyclopedic. There is no need to have articles on every possibility of "songs about _____". I like WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information too. Now to just wait for another person to cite IAR for why we should keep this. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reconsidered as the user nominated lots of lists without discrimination. With sources, the list is salvagable SteveLamacq43 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep due to lazy mass listing - very poor form in my opinion. To the nominator: there is some precedent for deleting certain song lists in the namespace search link you provided, but there is also considerable precedent to keep in that same list - did you check them all? If not, this kind of invalidates your use of this as a justification. Please list all the articles for AfD seperately by all means, or point to an unambiguous guideline, or discussion where consensus was reached in the Village Pump. --Canley 01:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, Strong Keep, for the reasons given above. It is quite impossible to have a good debate about keeping or deleting articles when so many are bunched together. Some maybe should be deleted. Some should be kept. Some can be pretty well complete. Others will always be incomplete. Please close this with a speedy keep. --Bduke 01:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either all of these articles should be kept, or all should be deleted. People are arguing that there's too many up for deletion, but I don't believe this is the case. Either we're going to accept all lists of songs based on topic or we delete them all; there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't so we can't justify keeping some and excluding others. Personally, I have already stated that I strongly support deletion; this is a terrible precedent to set and leads to totally random lists that aren't worth having. --The Way 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that there is no logical means of saying some song topic lists are ok while others aren't. ---Dystopos 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that lists which would be too vague (Songs about Love etc.) should be deleted, but lists about more specific things (Songs about masturbation, Songs about killers etc.) Should be kept. Bakilas 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I think a mass listing is a bad idea - has anyone here looked at all the articles to make an appropriate assessment based on the merits of each? I think some that I am familiar with are interesting and useful, it is also useful to have such lists to redirect information that would otherwise clog up main article space. --Melburnian 02:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think policy should be decided via AfD. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure some of these are no good, but there are some that are, and there's no way to properly deal with them all in a single AfD. As pfctdayelise says, you shouldn't create policy by AfD; if there's a need for some standard on list topics in this area, then write it up somewhere. --bainer (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these articles are notable and rather interesting. Rebecca 04:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above comments by Thebainer and Rebecca. -- Chuq 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is a violation of process and vastly over-reaches with its list of unrelated articles. Edison 05:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these articles fit in with the "culture" sections of major songs on large cities, and other items. I think, rather than this mass deletion, someone should go through and pull out any arbitrary lists, so we can vote on them individually, rather than for a whole lot. JROBBO 07:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subjects for lists. Ohconfucius 08:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much as I despise pointless and unverifiable listcruft, this nomination is far too broad, and I can't possibly check all those articles. At a rough guess, I would support deletion for 80% of those articles if they were nominated individually, but as others have said, a few might actually be useful in some context or other. The notion that if one songlist is bad (or good), then they all must be is sheer nonsense! Xtifr _tälk 10:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lists are useful. Yes, the lists may need to be wikified, pruned, cited and verified, but that's no ground for deletion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD notice has been removed from List of songs about masturbation because it has just survived a second AfD. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've analysed the list of AfD debates provided by MER-C as a precedent for deletion of lists of songs.

25 deleted
10 kept
6 no consensus, so kept
2 were incorrectly listed, so the debate was closed with no action
1 was merged (into this article: List of songs about drugs)
1 was speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material
... and one is currently running - this one.
Also note: List of songs about masturbation has actually survived four AfD nominations. List of songs about laziness survived one AfD, but was deleted in the second.

I figure the results would be fairly similar if this batch of lists were nominated separately, and the fact that over a third of the articles were kept (some repeatedly), should give the nominator pause for thought that mass nomination is really inappropriate and unsuitable in this case. I find it kind of ironic that this discussion is an indiscriminate listing to get rid of supposedly indiscriminate listings! --Canley 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh. Nice observation. --Dystopos 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - way too indiscriminate. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the originally nominated list as unsourced and unverifiable and unmaintainable. Keep the many other lists until either (1) a general policy discussion is held and comes to some consensus, or (2) they can be nominated in small closely-related groups instead of an indiscriminate horde. Some are more focused and more verifiable than others. I'll support deleting most of them, as this is not Wikimusic nor Wikitrivia, but they should be handled with proper attention to each one. Barno 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please there is nothing wrong with this list at all Yuckfoo 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the originally nominated list as above. I wouldn't mind seeing most other "List of songs about ---- " articles be deleted too, but lets take them one at a time. Crabapplecove 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of these lists are interesting and informative. A few may deserve deletion, but certainly not the main list. Also, the lists of songs about the Vietnam War, prostitution, WWII, sex, suicide, and quite a few others definitely deserve to be kept. Callmarcus 13 November 2006
Comment In addition, your reasons for deletion make no sense. A biography of a currently living person is incomplete, but that does not mean you should delete that biography. There are currently disclaimers are the top of all of these lists that informs the reader that the list may not be complete.
Keep There are lots of other things on Wikipedia that are not comprehensive. This is also something Wikipedia is pretty good for -- saving time for people looking for all x of type y. Could vote delete or merge on certain of these lists, but cannot do so when they are all nominated together. — Donama 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Keep; this one bundles altogether too many articles. please renominate individually over a longer period of time, or at least grouped in bunches of no more than a handful, grouped by theme (e.g. nomination of lists of songs about various wars). I have no opinion about the articles; it's just that in order to put some sanity to the AfD process you don't bundle bazillion and six articles with exceedingly little in common with each other in one AfD. Remember the esoteric programming languages AfD that went bazquoncs. And that "all 200 articles in the Naruto episodes category" one. If you bundle AfDs, please at least make sure it's entirely possible for an editor to take a look at each of the articles in one (quick) sitting. And finally, "precedent" there may be, but each of these still needs individual consideration. You know, like all other articles up for deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly rationalize an AfD over ""all 200 articles in the Naruto episodes category" before I could rationalize this one. --Dystopos 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - These lists are overkill. Do we need a list of songs about Birmingham, Alabama? A list of songs about specific drugs? A list of songs about famous people other than politicians? Categories would probably be more useful for some of these things, but I still would not want to see Category:Songs about Birmingham, Alabama. George J. Bendo 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to like List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama. By comparison with some of these rather nebulous subjects, it is quite manageable and serves the purpose of not overloading the main article on the city. --Dystopos 14:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. If any lists of songs are worthwhile, these are. I can certainly see List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama being useful for scholarly research, for instance. Herostratus 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found the Songs about the end of the world and found it very useful. They are only text and take very little space. Very useful for creating topical playlists of certain kinds of songs. Hadnt found anything else that helped until the article here.
Delete List of songs about drugs, however Discuss all other nominations separately. Timrem 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You should not delete all of these lists. Most of them are informative and helpful. There seems to be an anti-list agenda going on here. If you truly feel they are incomplete, then add to them. Root7 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well researched, very useful list. Cnwb 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, this AfD shows a real misunderstanding of the rule of precedents and nominating. After these are all kept, the nominator and those whose delete votes are based on precedent will all gladly vote keep next time due to precedent set here, right? Yeah. Carlossuarez46 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I will be willing to vote Delete on most of these, but separate nominations are needed. utcursch | talk 12:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This list is useful, considered and exists nowhere else. Other list entries must be determined individually.Lentisco 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Good list 65.33.142.174 04:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, the "Songs about Mental Illness" list is excellent and I'm going to use it in my class about popular culture and mental illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.64.3 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Dakota 03:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROSE Online[edit]

Non-notable computer game. Google does not turn up any WP:RS that indicate that it would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Mostly a game guide, which WP is not. Leuko 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable computer game. An english Google search for sources naturally would be fruitless for a game that seems to be primarily played overseas. Has entries at GameFAQs/GameSpot/IGN, which is a pretty standard measurement of game notability (or at least game series notability). --- RockMFR 08:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article could use a lot of cleanup but otherwise its a notable computer game I've heard of before. VegaDark 09:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT a game guide. --Nehwyn 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Does read like a game guide, but it's at least sourced, and seems noteworthy. Shimeru 00:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ROSE Online is published by GRAVITY Co., Ltd., the creator of Ragnarok Online, both of which are notable. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those may be notable, but what about the article in question? --Nehwyn 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SOFTWARE, "The software is among the core products of a notable software developer or vendor." --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ROSE Online is most definitely notable, being one of the larger MMORPGs in Korean, Japan, Taiwan and such. Never made it in the west but insanely popular in the east. Ben W Bell talk 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, and actually a little bit fun. At least the beta was when I played it. What information that breaks WP:NOT can be removed. Oh, and Google isn't the be all and end all of research; GameSpot and IGN both have information about this game. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed much information that could be read as a game guide. Could use further cleanup. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable computer game. The only reason nominator failed to find Reliable Sources on Google is due to a lack of competence in regards to search engine usage. - Hahnchen 21:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And your comment shows a lack of competence in reading basic policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Leuko 03:31, 17 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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edenmore[edit]

It's a non-notable shopping centre that I don't think belongs in an encyclopedia. JSmith60 07:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks context. Marginal speedy. MER-C 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability. The article doesn't even say outright what country the mall is in. There's more than one Dublin in the world. --Charlene 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no claims to notability, simply being a building is not notable enough reason to have an article on. VegaDark 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Tulkolahten 10:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims to notability asserted here. --SunStar Net 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notablity. Hello32020 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - No claim to notability. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable, an ad, and possible vanity. Spinach Dip 21:19, 12 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. Closure mostly per WP:V, although WP:N concerns were mentioned as well. So article can potentially be recreated with reliable new sources. ~ trialsanderrors 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romney Lyle Pearce[edit]

Contested prod, removed because they thought they were notable enough to keep. I disagree, I don't think the claims to notability are strong enough. Was a member of several NN bands and was a POW. There were tons of POW's during WWII, being one alone does not make you notable enough for Wikipedia. I don't really see any claims that would have him pass WP:MUSIC. VegaDark 08:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, VegaDark, but I still have to respectfully disagree. I think Pearce's story (and perhaps your own) show a slice of life people of my generation (and beyond) may not see otherwise. JABPP 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. None of this is referenced in the way Wikipedia NEEDS things to be referenced; to reliable, unrelated secondary sources. The only reference given is a book written by the subject's son, which concerns me as there could be a conflict of interest - a loyal son may be less than forthcoming about negative character traits, and may see his father as more notable than he was. Unfortunately, since that's the only reference given, there's no way to check on it. If the writer of this article could locate and provide references to Romney Lyle Pearce written by unrelated third parties (Portland newspaper archives, for instance, or the published writings of local historians) and write the article based on those sources, it would be acceptable. Just because something is true doesn't mean it should be in Wikipedia: it has to be supported by reliable, unrelated secondary sources. --Charlene 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless verifiable, reliable sources and evidence of notability are provided by the end of the AfD process. Do not prevent re-creation, in case reliable sources are found later. Unfortunately, the present article simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia, and the lack of on-line documentation for that era makes it unlikely that the article can be fixed without some moderately serious research. It will do us no harm to live without the article until (if) someone is able and willing to do that research. Xtifr _tälk 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a Portlander in college, so I have access to several relevant databases. Two of the databases cover newspapers: one archives The Oregonian (Oregon's largest newspaper) and the other archives headlines in a large variety of Oregon newspapers. Neither came up with a hit for "Romney Pearce" or "Romney Lyle Pearce." They only go back to 1988 (five years after he died), but I would think that there would be at least one mention of a sufficiently prominent musician. A search through Cascade, an interlibrary loan system for universities and colleges in the Pacific Northwest, came up with no results for "Autobiography of a Father." The same with the Clackamas County and Multnomah County library catalogs. If VegaDark, an Oregon State University student himself, has never heard of him, I doubt he was very famous there either. As much as I like Oregonians, I can't see how he is notable enough for inclusion. - Pingveno 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the references to his supposed notability as a musician date back more to the thirties (which presumably would not show up in your search). On the other hand, your inability to find any reference to the book supposedly used as the sole source for all of this is far more troubling, and even raises the possibility that we're dealing with a hoax here. Xtifr _tälk 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO in that it does not cite any sources. --Nehwyn 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:OR meshach 17:09, 12 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 speedily deleted by Pgk. MER-C 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guernica Magazine[edit]

Advert . Article created by user:Meakin who, I assume is the mag's Contributing Editor for fiction, Meakin Armstrong. -- RHaworth 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. So tagged. MER-C 10:34, 12 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 ~ trialsanderrors 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden crop[edit]

Article fails WP:WEB for notability, does not cite sources, and appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. Ale_Jrb ^talk 10:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep This is a helpful page for all members of the game. More information will be added soon. What sources do we need to cite if we wrote it ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.39.124 (talk • contribs)

See WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V for the answer to your question. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa = 3,822,255 [4]. Enough said. MER-C 10:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advert for a non-notable game. No sources cited. Thryduulf 11:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable advert. Hello32020 13:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not deserving of its own Wikipedia entry Pontificake 13:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fully unsourced, no claim to notability. --Nehwyn 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have played this game a long time, it is local history around the ashford (UK)area. A lot of members who play Goldencrop have asked about the history of the game, so we decided to set up a Wikipedia page about the history and what the game does, the page is still in the making and over the up and coming weeks, will be a very useful part of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.205.202 (talk • contribs)

Consider making a webpage for it then. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service. Recury 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can this be an advertisement for the game, it does not try to encourage people to join the it. All it is, is information and facts. If the site needed to be advertised why choose a site like wikipedia to do it on. This isn't advertising because you can only find a page on wikipedia if you search for it, therefore the only people who could find the page are people who already know ablout it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.209.90 (talk • contribs) — 81.159.209.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello there. Even accepting the fact that it is not advertising, have you got any evidence the game meets the WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria? --Nehwyn 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. Everything is unsources meshach 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: User:04riversj had edited this page by posting another keep comment, but also by modifying some of the delete opinions expressed above so that they favoured the website instead. Since User:04riversj is a newly created single-purpose account, let us be very clear here to any other user of the website in question who may come visit: abusing this page will not help in saving the article (quite the opposite). Modifying other people's comments is considered vandalism, and when it is done on a deletion debate, it is a most serious form of it. I have reverted said edit (anyone interested may find it here) and posted a final warning on that user's talk page. --Nehwyn 18:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As the article is written now, it is non-notable and an advert. There is a possibility that rewriting it could make it keepable. Spinach Dip 21:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm... I'd say no amount of rewriting can create sources out of thin air. --Nehwyn 22:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I PRODed this originally as being non-notable, unsourced and unverifiable; looks like a lot of folks are in agreement. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game. --- RockMFR 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Definitely an advertisement, and for a non-notable game to boot. "Enjoy the game and get farming?" Seriously. Reads like it wants Wikipedians to join and play. If that's not spam, what is? –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as admitted original research. NN online game with no verifiable sources. Your own website would be the better vehicle to promote the game's history. Resolute 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without thrid-party sources, it does not come close to WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question If we can get a 3rd party source. would the page be able to stay??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.67.202 (talk • contribs) — 86.141.67.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable game. It needs multiple independent sources to show it is notable. One third party source would not be enough. It sounds like a fine educational enterprise, and if it attains notability there is no reason the article could not be recreated. Edison 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!!!!!! goldencrop deserves a discription it has over 6000 registerd users and surely thats more than double most of the viewers most of the pages on this site have had — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that is not an inclusion criterion. Any evidence of meeting WP:WEB? --Nehwyn 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a player of the game as well as a citizen of the web, I can understand both points of view being expressed. As a member of the web community, I can understand that Wikipedia has a definite criteria that determines what should and should not be placed on it's site. Reading over WP:WEB shows me that Golden Crop does not meet those criteria. As a player of the game, I know this was not meant as an advertisement, just the expression of pride in a game that is rather unique and very fun. I hope that some or all points of the WP:WEB will one day be applicable to this unique game, but until then, I can live with the fact that a page on Golden Crop does not yet belong in Wikipedia. --MrAutomation 24.67.4.192 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:03, 14 November 2006

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Edison. Best of luck with the game, sounds more interesting than bashing monsters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 16 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 wasDelete.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Eternal[edit]

Disputed prod. This is an article on a fan-run game server with no referenced assertion of notability. Suggest deletion as a non-notable original creation per WP:WEB/WP:NOT. --Muchness 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thryduulf 11:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple non-trivial reliable sources can be found. --Nehwyn 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 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, same reasons as first time and DRV that followed. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kootenai Valley Press[edit]

The entire article consists of the single sentence "The Kootenai Valley Press (also known as the Kootenai Valley Times) in a newspaper published in Bonners Ferry, Idaho."

This was previously speedily deleted by user:JzG with the comment "Empty article, devoid of context (and indeed content)". This article is identical to that version, but has one fewer stub template. Thryduulf 11:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean it can be speedied again? Eh, delete. --humblefool ® 11:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Hi Thryduulf! Been a while![reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guido del Toro[edit]

A blatant hoax, complete with a Photoshopped picture. GregorB 11:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. So tagged. MER-C 11:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. If this were real there would be hits to google beyond a few videos on YouTube and a page that prominently links to the Wikipedia article. Note also the redirect Guido del toro. Thryduulf 11:43, 12 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. W.marsh 15:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel april[edit]

Moved from speedy. Appears to be a series of bios, so could possibly be split up but will need to be thoroughly checked for NPOV. Two of the people on the list have articles. Tim! 11:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May be a notable subject, but the complete absence of WP:RS makes it a big exercise in WP:OR. --Nehwyn 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As sad or serious a story as this is, an encyclopedia is not the place for it. It is a personal account or a journal entry (or several of them), and doesn't belong here. Wavy G 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT memorial meshach 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a memorial as meshach points out -- Whpq 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per Wavy G and meshach. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on - What makes Wikipedia great is that it is comprehensive and has the potential to include different points of view. This article is written to add to the history of the Vietnam war, that it did not end when the US withdrew in 1972. Biographies of each of these soldiers may be insignificant. But including them together is significant. This article helps depict the hopelessness of the South Vietnamese at the close of the war. My newphew was asked by his high school history teacher to write about the war from a personal point of view. He was born in this country and had a hard time finding information of that time. It will take time for me and others to add sources to the article. Patience please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)
Delete: I really can't see how this is going to become a noteworthy article. The information on these suicides belongs on the bios for the persons named, if anywhere. Heimstern Läufer 15:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet as it stands, what your nephew produuced would seem to be original research. What's needed are sources to indicate that "Cruel april" is an actual event recognized as an entity. -- Whpq 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if - If you did not learn anything new about the South Vietnamese soldiers. My presumption is that you think the US had no business being over there, that the South Vietnamese should have fought for themselves and that thousands of US soldiers died in vain. Is Wikipedia so small that it cannot afford to present a few tidbits of the fortgotten South Vietnamese soldiers, so that someone might learn something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.29.226 (talk • contribs)

Hello there. Wikipedia requires that references are mentioned to verify information. Can you do that, so that we can verify the accuracy of the content of the article? --Nehwyn 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more research - I will do more research and would add more information about "Cruel April" which is the title of a book that I have read but misplaced and will have to locate/credit. The biographies will eventually be a minor link to the total capture of the month and the rapid collapse. Thanks for your suggestions and patience.
Delete - Simply because the article is unsalvageable. All it is now is an essay about an event with a POV title, and perhaps one book backing it up. WP:V & WP:N- one book does not a notable subject make. This is the only Vietnam related "Cruel April" result on Google. While google results are not inherently a measure of notability, I think that this paired with my above assertions are enough evidence to think the subject is NN. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel April is what the South Vietnamese themselves call the events that transpired that month. The communists call it Liberation. Of course you will not see the term when you google it. I agree the article needs work. But can you find anything that ties together what happened when in the course of one month, a nation of 20 million people fell to the enemy in the span of one month.

The Vietnamese Google talks about the events that unfolded in a propaganda style. No mention of the poor South Vietnamese, of the killings and the suicides. Like I said before, this article will eventually include the totality of the month and not just what happened to the soldiers. I do have some articles from the New York Times that can back up some of the contents. The rest about the soldiers, the Pentagon did a debriefing of the South Vietnamese political and military leaders in a series called Vietnam monographs shortly after the fall of Saigon. I will cite the sources and add footnotes and references (these are in storage right now).

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/saigon/articles.html#surrender http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%E1%BB%B1_ki%E1%BB%87n_30_th%C3%A1ng_4,_1975

The term is still not notable. Name a source which refers to the withdrawal or suicides as "Cruel April." --Wooty Woot? | contribs 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.yale.edu/seas/bibliography/chapters/chap9.html. Several authors (politician/soldiers) recount their hardships and include the names that I included in the article.

No, you don't understand. We are not talking about the notability of the people (if they are notable, they should be separate biographies). You specifically lumped all of these suicides into a name called "cruel april". If this term is notable, then the article's title is appropriate. Otherwise, the article should be deleted, and the people in the article should be evaluated for their notability. If they are notable, a page may be created about them. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5] - How about this?

Thang Tu means April, Chuyen Buon means Sad/cruel stories. This is a well known poem about the last days.

Uh, the page says "black April". But regardless, you need multiple sources, not just a poem which may or may not be about the term (see WP:NEO). I suggest at this point to go find sources for the other guys (one of them got AfD'd but it looks like he has a couple sources, so if you can repeat that with the other guys, you could just make a bio for each of them. Also consider the fact that the title of this page is NPOV. --Wooty Woot? | contribs 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a pain in the ass, but you do have some good points and I do like the suggestions that you made for other articles you are reviewing. I include here the translation of the word, only because you insinuated that I made it up.:} http://vdict.com/bu%E1%BB%93n,2,0.html

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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; given that the nomination and the two initial !votes were regarding a lack of sources (and hence a lack of notability), the five sources which were found counters this. I've added the five references to the article, however they need to be wikified per MOS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le Van Hung[edit]

Seems to be a personalised account. see also Cruel april Tim! 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT meshach 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would be a reliable source on the subject. It's a document from the CGSC. This might be another one, but I don't have access. This might be a good place for sources as well. ColourBurst 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a general in the ARVN, and the siege of An Loc was one of the major battles of the Easter Offensive. --Groggy Dice 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Groggy Dice. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a signifficant figure in the Vietnam War. Besides the references above, other accounts also suggest importance [6] [7]. --Oakshade 05:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade Un focused 07:31, 15 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.--Hús ö nd 05:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Cyrillic alphabet[edit]

It has been pretty much verified that there is no source for this article and that it is a hoax. -- Evertype·✆ 12:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nominator. -- Evertype·✆ 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under hoax criteria. Hello32020 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nomination. --Nehwyn 13:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Actually, there is no evidence that it is a hoax, but it just might be. Too bad. —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 16:49 Z
Delete as unverified & with no sources a probable {{hoax}}. Sorry, guys, the WP:CSD non-criteria states; "Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." (aeropagitica) 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 09:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and aeropagitica unless verifiable sources are provided before AfD expires. Xtifr _tälk 10:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German deleted their version of this articel. Someone may want to notify Korean and Macedonian, as they have translations of this. 68.39.174.238 05:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Felix the Cassowary 08:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nomination. Definitely a hoax and used Russophobically. The story about Moldavian is incorrect, as there was an earlier tradition of writing Romanian in Cyrillic. For a "real" Germanic language written in the Cyrillic alphabet: see Syldavian. --Pan Gerwazy 09:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this piece of garbage already, please!! RFerreira 05:39, 17 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 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard jeffs[edit]

Questionable notability, no evidence provided to meet WP:BIO. Your notability isn't determined by who you do business with. Unreferenced. Contested prod. MER-C 12:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. --Nehwyn 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the services he performed for his clients had made a notable impact on their business, that would be a different thing. But someone else would have performed the same services. He's just well-connected, and this article just serves to promote his business sales. The first sentence aims you right at a link for his company. That's what's really going on here. OfficeGirl 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:09, 14 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 13:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Intelligence[edit]

Meaningless buzzword. Compare the section under "Problems in a business process may arise in three places:" in WP:BOLLOCKS Leibniz 12:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully unsourced original research. --Nehwyn 13:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A comprehensive compilation worthy of a corporate compendium on the stragetic use of non-commitial communication. Also links only from one article, Leadership but then only in the see also section as such doesnt add any value to that article. Gnangarra 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gnangnarra. Blue sky thinking outside the envelope? No thanks. --Folantin 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per above. Article doesn't make sense - seems like someone's random ramblings. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original Research, unsourced. Spinach Dip 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Useless unencyclopaedic OR. Moreschi 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - word salad. - Smerdis of Tlön 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, word salad is right. RFerreira 05:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WORD SALAD sounds like a good name for an essay. ~ trialsanderrors 06:21, 17 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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Debi Pearl[edit]

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 13:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, also in consideration of WP:NPOV. --Nehwyn 13:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was surprised to learn that Michael Pearl's book To Train up a Child apparently had an Amazon rank of 8,277th. The other examples of his works rank considerably lower. Ohconfucius 08:43, 13 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 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudiu Popa[edit]

Vanity page for non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 13:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Nehwyn 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. GregorB 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Spinach Dip 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Youngster of Germany 00:57, 15 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. W.marsh 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Possamai[edit]

NN per WP:PROF ("an emerging new scholar" says as much). Leibniz 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "Major Contributions" sections does need cleanup but that's not a reason to delete. The subject has won an award(cited in article) for his dissertation, that is enough for me to say keep, as far as "notability" is concerned. Mitaphane _talk 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like he might be notable someday; we can make an article for him then. I'm not impressed by the award. Lots of people win awards. I've won awards! (Though I admit that his award is more impressive than any I've won, but still not enough, IMO, to confer notability.) Xtifr _tälk 10:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr, may also suffer from WP:AUTO issues. Sandstein 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 19:34, 16 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 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Richman[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines for music or people.

The article starts out by saying that he is a kid who makes records in his parent's basement.
He hasn't been on national tour.
He hasn't been picked up by any label, his albums are do-it-yourself.
No evidence of meeting any of the notability guidelines for people or musicians.

Mdhandley 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; maybe even eligible for {{db-band}}. GregorB 14:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. I point out in passing that another Adam Richman may be more notable than this individual, but I'm not even sure if that Adam Richman is notable enough for Wikipedia. --Charlene 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As vanity. Spinach Dip 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article sounds like vanity, but the guy has been on national tour. I saw him in Chicago two years ago, last year he was back opening for a J-pop band, and I find concert listings across the US (one year ago he played back-to-back gigs on both coasts). According to this he had to drop out of college to go on tour. He has an MTV profile with video. Here's a profile/review from Harp, a print magazine. The AP carried a capsule review of his album. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he has been picked up by Or Music, the original label for Matisyahu among others. --Dhartung | Talk 00:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In order to qualify as notable, you have to be signed to a major record label, or one of the more important indie labels. Guidelines say it must be "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable." Or Music's only really notable performer is Matisyahu, and their history goes back barely three years. The only other qualification Adam Richman even comes close to is a national tour, so his notability is quite shaky. Give him a few more years, and see if he makes it. Then we can write an article about him. Mdhandley 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI. Or Music also distributes John Cale and Los Lonely Boys. That's three notable performers besides Richman. And I'm not sure how he "comes close" to a national tour, when he criss-crossed the US for three years straight. How many times do you have to tour the country before it's a "national tour"? He's the second featured performer here. Every other band on that tour already has an article (which is not a keep argument, it's just a comparison). --Dhartung | Talk 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nomination. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. Meets touring requirement of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, definitely meets WP:MUSIC criteria. RFerreira 05:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung (I generally take a dim view of the WP:MUSIC touring criterion as insufficiently rigorous and I certainly recognize that MUSIC is but a guideline and ought not categorically to control; notwithstanding that, and even as my notability guidelines as regards musicians might be differently delineated, I think there to be a broad consensus for MUSIC and that, absent special circumstances, we ought to apply it). Joe 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. bbx 07:21, 17 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 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio's Technology Base[edit]

Apparent vanity, original research, spam as a business location, no notability and unencyclopedic. Nothing that could not be summed up in the main San Antonio as -San Antonio is home to a number of high tech organiosations, such as **** Nuttah68 14:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. eaolson 14:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, non-notable, original research. 15:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete as OR. This reads like a flyer. meshach 19:47, 12 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. DS 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guleria[edit]

Original research. Deproded by author without explanation. The original article contained the following: "...information about the Guler kingdom that I have obtained first-hand via research, interviews and museum study. As this research project is still in progress, I encourage anybody willing to contribute to the project to contact us." No sources given. eaolson 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research and probable hoax. GringoInChile 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per author's self-admitted original research. Wavy G 15:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOR. Ollie 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 23:26, 12 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. W.marsh 01:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle-earth Men[edit]

original resarch and listcruft. Onknkrpwxq 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes you think this list is Original research? I've looked over the page, I can't see anything that isn't from Tolkien's material. Listcruft isn't a valid objection either, as the Middle-Earth series is clearly important, therefore a list of characters in it is not cruft. And that's even assume listcruft was available as a reason to delete in the first place. It's not. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Onknkrpwxq just created this account today, and their only contributions have been nominating articles for deletion. Wavy G 16:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Listcruft is an accepted term and reason for deletion (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). This is just a text list of names, very few have a definition/clarification and none have their own articles. meshach 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Listcruft is not actually a valid reason to delete. It may be a widely used term, but that doesn't make it acceptable, let alone desirable for an AFD. You can see a caution about its use on the page for listcruft. It's much better to explain why you think a list of characters in a notable series of books is undesirable instead of just saying "This is listcruft" . Furthermore, which of the entries at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE do you think this list violates? Clearly, it's not 1-6, so the best you can get is 7. And even then, this isn't a plot summary, just a list of characters in the book. There are other Tolkien characters listed. For example see: List of Middle-earth Dwarves and List of Hobbits or even Horses of Middle-earth. Not to mention the dozens of other series with lists for their characters. Like: List of Arthurian Characters, List of Garfield characters, List of Honorverse Characters, and List of Passions Characters. Sorry, but I think it's clear that there's a general desirability to have lists of characters in various works on Wikipedia, as it helps avoid having stub-entries and provides one convenient place to find information. This includes characters in Middle-Earth, whether they be men, dwarves or horses. BTW, I see at least four with their names linked, and several of the rest actually do have articles, but haven't been properly linked. So, at most, this page is incomplete. Big surprise. There's a lot of Tolkien material out htere. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It's just a long list of names, no encyclopedic content and not very notable. Spinach Dip 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not original research - it's all from Tolkien's writings. Obviously the list is currently vastly incomplete, which is probably why it is being called listcruft - it seems that the final goal of the page is to have information for every character, which would not be listcruft. --- RockMFR 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How many of these entries can actually have something written about them? Theres over a hundred entries on this list; just HOW can you have info on every single character? Unless you copy the entire article directly from Tolkeins' writings, this will be nothing but a large collection of names with minor and sporatic information. Spinach Dip 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If any of the entries can't have anything written about them, they should probably be removed, but I'd say based on what I know of Tolkien, you could easily populate over four dozen of the entries with some detail. I'd suggest somebody good at scripting to auto-link all the entries on this page, then working from there. FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize I'm sure it's all verified, but there are a lot of men in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Maybe have an article on notable men in Middle Earth (ie, mentioned more than a few times/chapters). Otherwise, the list will just get huge. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needs to be deleted becuase it is only a giant list, no attempt at providing encyclopedic information about these charcters is made. Indexes are better as catagories. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see at least half a dozen entries which have some attempt at information on them. Given that this is Tolkien, I expect most of the rest could as well, just nobody has gotten around to it yet, because it's not high priority for the Middle-Earth Project. FrozenPurpleCube 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and categorise if useful. WP:BAI stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT (characters in a fictional work should be treated in the article unless too long), a mere list seems to fit the bill of being either in the article or just deleted as being of no encyclopedic value. Carlossuarez46 01:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were massively cleaned-up (formatted consistently, aliases removed, etc.) it would still be an unencyclopedic indiscriminate collection of information. Notable characters have their own articles and non-notable ones don't really need to be mentioned at all. If necessary/desirable information can be added to articles like Edain and Numenoreans but a quick look did not show any likely merge material.

The Category this is redundant to is Category:Middle-earth Men which is neatly subdivided into sub-categories and includes every concievably notable human character from Tolkien's legendarium. Eluchil404 09:56, 17 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. W.marsh 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZhengMa[edit]

original research and non-notable. Onknkrpwxq 15:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Ships with Windows, would pass WP:SOFTWARE. Currently no sources are cited, though since it ships with Windows, there would definitely be sources for this. Therefore it does not fail WP:V. An article is not deleted just because it currently has no references. --- RockMFR 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what is this "Windows" you speak of? Is that something notable? Ok, ok, I kid, but as someone who has never used Windows, I have no way of verifying this claim. Please provide some references. Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some cleanup and references, but definantly passes WP:SOFTWARE. --Lim e tom 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't agree that this is software - it is an input method implemented in Windows, not a separate product. The reason I think it should be kept is that the article on Chinese input methods for computers has wikilinks to this and a number of other wikipedia articles on input methods, and many of those other articles are good: Cangjie method, Boshiamy method, and Dayi method, to pick just three from the top of the list. Based on those three, it looks to me like this article could be similarly expanded. John Broughton | Talk 17:56, 17 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 13:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-intelligence[edit]

Advert for the "institute", OR/WP:BOLLOCKS, no WP:RS. Related nominations: Tom Atlee and Co-Intelligence Institute. Leibniz 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the links at the end make the article seem like it was merely created to promote their institute.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement MightyAtom 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 20:02, 16 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 per WP:SNOW and CSD G7 --pgk 18:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ufc-pride[edit]

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

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

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

Small IRC "network", we do have articles on various other IRC networks, is this sufficient to keep this on wikipedia. No vote-- pgk 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per "Users count vary between 80 and 150 users". Fails WP:N. - Tutmosis 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established through reliable or verifiable sources. Metros232 15:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only mma related irc server in the world. Even if they are small, they are one of a kind. Shen420 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's first edits, created 17 minutes after AfD posted. Fethers 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If I made an irc server dedicated to bald panda bears, it'd probably be small as well...but it'd be one of a kind. Would you allow that to have its own article? Metros232 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Server notability can be established through groundnpound.org. User count of other IRC network articles on wikipedia are low but that isn't sufficient to delete them. AbleNET for example. The notability claim "Only MMA related server in the world" can be established via searchirc Brettybabe 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does groundnpound.org establish notability? I don't see anything on that site that asserts it (then again that site seems so disorganized that I don't think I could find anything about anything on there. Also, please stop using the "Well this thing has an article, so mine deserves an article" argument. It is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. I did an IRC search at the website you gave for "MMA" and all I got was this. I don't see your server listed there under MMA as you suggest one could. Metros232 16:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search for server using MMA you will only find servers with MMA in the server name. If one whent through every server, which I have, none of them are dedicated to MMA except ufc-pride. Also the user count on ufc-pride is / was wrong. Previously I asked an oper for the user count, which I was told is 80 - 150, joining the network it reports "Current Global Users: 129 Max: 491" so it is not so small after all. Brettybabe 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable, unverifiable 129-concurrent-user server. Fethers 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment user count is verifiable if you bothered to connected to the server and looked at the server logs, easily verifiable. The trolls come out to play. Brettybabe 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The citation of such facts is on the shoulders of those who introduce such facts. It is not up to Fethers, to me, to anyone else to log onto the server to find this out. Also, please refrain from personal attacks against other users. Metros232 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Ufc-Pride ranks #372 out of 3,834 IRC networks indexed on SearchIRC, with 131 average users over the last week. Shen420 17:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment searchIRC.com:ufc-pride verfies the user count, this will be updated on ufc-pride Brettybabe 17:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I will insert the rest of the citations on the article to tommorrow, I have diabetes and need to rest. Please be patient. Brettybabe 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: It's ok, he's been busy calling me a troll on my talk page as well. I've been trying to avoid getting involved in any character debates. SearchIRC shows 141 users over 18 channels. This is a textbook definition of "small" IRC network. Actually, I'd believe you need more than one server to be defined as a network, too. Moving on, searching for mixed martial arts gets no results. The four instances of "mma" on searchirc come up with four channels on the UFC Pride server; one is for idling in, one is exclusive to operators, and overall the server itself is down and there's some notice that they're going down "and we're not getting sued, we just can't talk about it." Puzzling. Fethers 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: The server is not down, Fethers is giving un-cited references, no where on searchirc does it say the server is down, I am connected to it. Fethers misrepresents the truth when he quotes verbatim a channel message that says "and we're not getting sued, we just can't talk about it." the message he is refering to says "Before you ask, no we are not getting sued or threatened". ... Fethers also in it. Shen420 20:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shen's comment about its ranking and average user count. Maybe if it were #1 or #2 it would be notable but this is pretty far from it. Recury 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So the fact that it is the only one out of 3,834 that specificly tailors just to the MMA community isn’t notable at all? There are several other articles, related to the same subject, on wikipedia with the a similar amount of users with no specific network type making them notable and they are allowed to stay, why should this be any different? Shen420 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, that isn't notable at all. The others probably just haven't been put up for deletion. Just because there currently is a page on Wikipedia doesn't mean that community consensus agrees it should be there. People are free to add articles at any time. Recury 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: so your saying that the "community consensus" consists of 4 poeple ? because its looking like that might be all it takes to get the page removed Shen420 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - When did I say that? I only said that just because a page exists doesn't mean that everyone agrees it should exist. But yes, 4 people can be enough if it isn't very controversial among users familiar with our policies. Recury 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the channel #ufc-pride was started more then 5 years ago thats FAR longer then most other networks that are noted here it even has its own MMA based rpg game (the ONLY mma rpg game in the world) and it also has 1 channel with over 100 users maybe you should accually come to the network before you bash it poeple have put alot of hard work into it and it angers me to see poeple who know nothing about MMA or IRC try to discredit it Fightma5t3r 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightma5t3r (talk • contribs) ; — Fightma5t3r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V, non-notable, fails (if this applies) WP:WEB as well. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Crabapplecove 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the newbies find of it's 372. Do you see article for ones between 10-371? Non-notable. Sorry. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: delinked is just one of the many networks that are listed on wilki that rank between 10-371 next time do some research before you post 68.186.107.104 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real assertion of notability. Barely reaching the top ten percent out of nearly 4000 servers is not remarkable. Resolute 02:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Distinct lack of any non-trivial reliable sources. Wickethewok 06:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. --TheOtherBob 18:35, 13 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah the Rover[edit]

Delete: I'm not entirely sure what is going on here. In the middle of it is buried a bio about a comedian I think. The last edit made me question my sanity. (It also de-prodded the article). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: appears to be nonsense per him being "Leader of horny young things". No google hits except wikipedia. - Tutmosis 15:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Leibniz 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Folantin 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comedian's (rather unfunny) attempt at absurdist humour. Wikipedia is not a blog. Wavy G 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I don't see why this cannot be speedied. It is far from passing BIO, V, OR ect.... HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy requires no assertion of notability. The article says he produced three "award winning compilation albums". That's an assertion. No speedy. Even if it's a hoax, no speedy (WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though maybe not a speedy the article sure seems like your typical "patent nonsense."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Nonsense and isn't even remotely funny. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Nonsense and rubbish. possibly vanity. Spinach Dip 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please WP:SPEEDY next time using db-nonsense. Moreschi 21:53, 12 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 Evolution of sex per conflicting consensi: 1. the topic seems notable, 2. the article fails our policies, and there is no reason to believe this will change in the near future. Redirecting preserves the edit history, so it can be recreated if someone with the necessary expertise is willing to work on it. ~ trialsanderrors 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled bank hypothesis[edit]

The page has been listed as POV since May 2005. It has not changed much at all in that time and is still POV. I propose that the page be deleted as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. This would allow for a nice fresh start to be made if someone felt it was necessary. Localzuk^(talk) 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems important as per Google scholar. I made a stab at NPOV by cutting out the POV "really defeats..." bit. Leibniz 16:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After perusing the results of a Google Scholar search on "tangled bank" I concur with Leibniz. Stammer 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Per Stammer and Leinbiz, but I agree with Localzuk as well that it needs to be worked upon. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 808 am ET November 13 2006
Comment I do not mind if it is kept, so long as people start to do something with it. Being marked as POV for 18 months is not a good thing so any attention that it gets is a Good Thing (TM). Localzuk^(talk) 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original POV tag was based on this reasoning:

"This article has a strong feeling of being written from an anti-evolutionist viewpoint: Googling to try to find sources keeps on finding anti-evolutionist/creationist websites containing similar wording and quotes. -- The Anome 12:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)"

I don't see how that applies. My reading is a controversy about sexual or asexual reproduction, without creationist WP:BOLLOCKS. I suggest: speedy keep, take off POV tag, but expert attention needed. Leibniz 19:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is bollocks. It doesn't have a point. - Richardcavell 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Strong Merge into Evolution of sex. The phrase itself should redirect to that article, of course. WMMartin 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge into Evolution of sex, with whatever is more relevant moved into Asexual reproduction. There doesn't need to be a separate article about one hypothesis of why some species do it one way and some do it the other, when there are already two articles that cover those two ways - two articles that are perfect places to compare and contrast. [Interestingly, the first of those two articles has a bad wikilink for the hypothesis (second word is capitalized) and the other has no mention at all of this hypothesis.] John Broughton | Talk 18:05, 17 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 - no other opinions presented, and not even a nominator to give a reason! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Everglades[edit]

Prod added by Fr. Wolf (talk · contribs) with the argument that the article appeared to be created to advertise for the school and that negative or neutral statements were being repeatedly removed. Since I see insufficient evidence of that, I am moving this to AfD but am opining keep. If there is a content problem, it should be dealt as a content problem, not as a deletion. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close nomination. Content disputes shouldn't go to AfD. --Charlene 19:41, 12 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 18:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Laurenze Celis[edit]

Looks like vanity. Unless notability established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope its not for vanity, for one thing he is an actor for two films, La funeraria toti under GMA Films which was an entry for the Pink Film Festival and Candle Light Fil Festival, and Room Boy which was entered at Cinemanila the previous year, you could even check The Varsitarian's website and see that he is a writer and a photographer there. --Thomasian2011
Delete. The movies he is listed as appearing in are in the Internet Movie Database, but he isn't listed in the cast of either film there. Granted, the films don't appear to have their full casts listed, but apparently he is not one of the main actors in either film. He has no IMDb entry at all. Thus, he should not be considered a notable actor yet under WP:BIO. Furthermore, being a writer/photographer for a student newspaper at a university is not a claim to notability. A new article can be created about him later if he does someday attain notability. --Metropolitan90 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Metropolitan90. --TM 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google the name and you come up with these results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Marc+Laurenze+Calalang+Celis . One valid listing of his name (other than wikipedia) is hardly enough to consider him notable yet. The article should be deleted according to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However its no probelm to recreate if the person in question gains more notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - being an actor in two undistributed indie films is hardly notable - it just takes knowing someone who makes low-budget indie films that never are successful enough for anything but being entered for film festivals. John Broughton | Talk 18:07, 17 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 a copy of non-commercial licensed content. Interiot 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tripolymer[edit]

Fancruft pasted from a Start Trek-specific wiki. --Nehwyn 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, pasted from http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Tripolymer . As that wiki licenses information under Creative Commons license, it is not compatible with our GFDL. I am adding a speedy copyvio tag. -- ReyBrujo 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that and placed a db tag myself, but then removed it because Creative Commons licences are listed among the acceptable options for images... I take they are not for text? --Nehwyn 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several Creative Commons licenses. The one used by Memory-Alpha is by-nc, that states You may not use this work for commercial purposes. (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/). Note that if you tag an image with {{Cc-by-nc}}, the image is immediately tagged as speedy candidate. -- ReyBrujo 17:33, 12 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 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tantra Kriya[edit]

non-encyclopedic, original research essay, instruction manual —Hanuman Das 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If possible, a serious rewrite would have to take place to not violate WP:OR & WP:NOT. Mitaphane _talk 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a POV How-to manual which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G11, tagged as such. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-referenced, non-notable ॐ Priyanath 03:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WIki is not a "how to" manual. Furthermore, looking at the style, I suspect it has been lifted from somewhere. Ohconfucius 08:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral She has an online magazine and has 616 google hits, maybe delete, but it is not a hoax article Simpleerob 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're better off starting from scratch with this one. RFerreira 05:40, 17 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 as per VegaDark. DS 19:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master of your domain[edit]

An article about a joke, I don't think it needs it's own article. I can only imagine how many articles we would have if we gave every joke in seinfeld an article. I made a post asking for references to notability, but got no response(Only reference is to an Urban dictionary entry written by "the brockman"). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a WP:NEO. Tarret 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Contest. Not important enough for its own article. VegaDark 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This makes alot of sense to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per VegaDark. meshach 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per VegaDark. I just saw this episode last night (in syndication)... you too? --- RockMFR 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per VegaDark †he Bread 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of the many articles of the sexual slang category. Althought I have to admit many of them could be merged together into Listing of sexual slang or the like. Many of the articles are very short. --Pinkkeith 17:03, 13 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 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Kantor[edit]

Academic CV; not enough to meet WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PROF. --Nehwyn 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have opted not to userfy this (apparently) autobio since that creates a redirect, and thus effectively leavs a vanity page reachable through ordinary encyclopaedic search. --Nehwyn 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied with the proofs of notability emerged during this debate. --Nehwyn 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete nn per WP:PROF. Wired article establishes notabilty. Leibniz 10:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity is not the sole issue here. I share nearly all of a name with another academic, who has apparently had his Prof. Bio placed here (Wikipedia). A search of the literature would confirm one of the most highly cited authors in the field of Information Science (according to SCI and several research papers on the topic), a number of awards, and a biography that appeared in Who's Who in America, and in Who's Who in the World. But, in the final analysis, of course, it is up to you. Drop me a line please. Paul B. Kantor 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. There are two issues worth mentioning here:

1) You are writing about yourself. Wikipedia strongly deprecates this typoe of conflict of interest.

2) As the creator of the article, the burden of demonstrating notability lies on you. If literature confirms notability, please provide references according to the WP:BIO and WP:PROF guidelines (you may also want to read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE). Thanks! --Nehwyn 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it. It's notable academician, what else do we need? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

References! Notability is not "vouched for" by oneself. --Nehwyn 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search for "Paul B. Kantor" in Google Scholar indicates that this person qualifies as an expert in in his field. Stammer 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run-of-the-mill professor. Dylan 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the scholarly evidence, take a look at the article in Wired Magazine. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarly evidence does indeed seem to exist. Believe he meets WP:PROF. Shimeru 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professors at major universities are notable per se. In addition, he has a long list of publications in refereed scientific journals and 2 articles about him in major publications. Good God, do you have any idea how far below this the "run of the mill professor" falls??? Edison 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is essentially the guy's resume (CV): education, membership, grants, publications. Just about every single full professor in a hard science department at any of the top 100 U.S. colleges and universities (not to mention foreign universities) has something similar - that would be 10,000 or more, easily. The Wired Magazine article is the sole possible discriminator here - and it's from 1998, about an approach for labeling information on the Web, an approach that hasn't implemented in the nine years since the article was published and (my best guess) never will be. Not enough stuff outside academia, in my opinion - someone interested in him should just go to his web page at Rutgers. John Broughton | Talk 18:18, 17 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 13:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Championship deathlock wrestling[edit]

Adding Online Wrestling Promotions to nom. NawlinWiki 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Press release" page for NN local wrestling event. Googling "Championship deathlock wrestling" gets exactly 1 ghit, this Bebo user page, "Frontline Euro Wrestling" gets 6 ghits, including a Bebo page, a Wiktionary delele log page, and this WP user page Th. Author took off speedy-delete, no references, and linkless tag twice, without adding links or references. The "notability" of this event appears to be mostly wishful thinking on the part of the author. Delete and salt Tubezone 18:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable indy fed (it it is even real). TJ Spyke 19:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's real. This is an advertisement for an online gaming site. The site purports to have the same name as a Wichita wrestling show that closed down in 2002, but despite the article claiming that the show was promoted by Fox, there are no Ghits for the wrestling show itself, only the online gaming site. That seems extremely unlikely to impossible for a wrestling show that took place in 2002. The article may qualify for speedy deletion under both A7 and G12. --Charlene 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is, ahem, a bit rambling and incoherent, so I missed the bit about the online gaming. I couldn't make heads or tails out of the Bebo page, either. BTW, "Lieutenant Lukey" turns up 2 ghits, neither of which have anything to do with this, "Luke McHugh" not much either. May be a case of WP:NFT. Tubezone 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as non-notable, vanity, and possible hoax. Spinach Dip 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Crabapplecove 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Completely unremarkable organization. Resolute 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable online fantasy "wrestling" group. NawlinWiki 22:32, 13 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 13:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Cellular Data[edit]

Nomination: The article was created and almost exlusively maintained by the single-purpose account that created AirSage, and advertisementesque article for a company making this "technology". The technology does not get mentioned in the journals "ITS Journal - Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal"/"Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems" since 2002 (the name changed in 2004), "IEEE Proceedings: Intelligent Transport Systems" in 2006, "IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine" in 2006, or the "IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems" since 2000. It does not appear in the U.S. DOT's National ITS Architecture Version 5.1 (latest, dated 10/20/2005). There is no google hit for "floating cellular data" that doesn't link back to Wikipedia. Accordingly, I nominate this article for deletion as a WP:V violation intended to assist in a WP:CORP violation for the article AirSage (which I am also nominating for deletion). The Literate Engineer 18:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Tutmosis 18:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is correct about WP:V; I'd say the article itself violates WP:NPOV and WP:N, and it reads like an advert with a tiny 'criticism' section tacked on to try to disguise the fact. --ais523 15:03, 13 November 2006 (U T C)
Delete per nom. WMMartin 20:32, 16 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 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AirSage[edit]

Nomination: I believe that this company fails WP:CORP and is therefore a violation of WP:NOT section 1.4.3. The article was created by what I believe is a single-purpose account promoting the company and its experimental technology, Floating Cellular Data, which also I believe fails WP:CORP and has verifiability issues. The Literate Engineer 18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete because it reads like advertisement (WP:NOT). Whether it violates WP:CORP, I'll be leaning on 'yes' even though google seems bring out quite a few results. - Tutmosis 18:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Sounds like an advertisement for the company, and the notability is questionable. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 per G1, A7, etc. Naconkantari 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield College A Stairs[edit]

Delete due to WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information about your dorm. If true, the information about the four-diamond rating could be at the Hatfield College article at best, but other than that, this contains no encyclopedic information, reads like a magnet for vanity, POV violations, WP:NFT games such as the "A Stairs Challenge" and "A Stairs Pool" mentioned, etc. The author asserts I'm violating his human rights by tagging this with a prod, so AfD seems like a legitimate move. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the "Are you f*cking kidding, you're actually trying to write an article about this?" clause. -- Kicking222 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly nn. Comment on talk page is amusing though. meshach 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. How does stuff like this even get this far? Spinach Dip 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. --- RockMFR 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete. What kind of an idiot thinks run-of-the-mill staircases are notable? Oy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:13, 13 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 13:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's river[edit]

This article is unsourced, contains unverifiable and likely false information about the phenomenon (thousands of rivers flow north in Asia, North Africa, Europe, Canada, Australia, and the Indonesian archipelago), contains unverifiable claims about why the supposed phenomenon exists, and does not assert the notability of the phrase "devil's river". For all the article says, the phrase (and the explanation) could have been created by the article's original writer out of thin air. If "devil's river" really is a commonly used term, the article should say at the very least who uses it, why they use it, and whether the belief is supported by reliable sources (and if so, those sources should be given). Charlene 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Also check the article's talk page; is this a hoax? --Charlene 18:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous related afd. meshach 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax or at best very rare usage. Google Books search turned up nothing corroborating. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a hoax, does not help that the See Also is a non-existant wiki link either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless thoroughly verified (which seems at first glance and with a short Google search unlikely). Fram 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As non-notable and possible hoax. Spinach Dip 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That "most" rivers flow south is a falsehood primarily existing among Americans; few rivers in the USA flow north merely because most of the USA lies south of the Hudson or Arctic basins. As stated, thousands of north-flowing rivers exist elsewhere, including such major watercourses as the Nile, Mackenzie, Rhine, Yenisei, Nelson, Lena, etc. Four of the ten longest river systems of the world flow north. - Montréalais 21:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This description of a river was mentioned in a college level geography class that I had (c.1985) and the reference was made to a local river since I was a young en' back in the 70's; It could be it has fallen in to disuse or would require a long trip to the library to veryify? Either way I dont care enough to do the leg work to source it out. Just delete it if you must but dont just accuse people of making stuff up because you can't easily verify with a search engine, the internet is not the be-all-end-all of human knowlege and experience. There is no such thing as the tide either, water just goes where it wants to. 70.35.199.57 16:06, 16 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. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of main Italian movies[edit]

Withdrawn ~~You can't define main, this is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. The "references and notes" section just seems non-encyclopedic to me. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete. The criteria are arbitrary, the title (and the subject) of the article is POV, and it's just a collection of indiscriminate information, which Wikipedia is not or should not be. --Charlene 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the purpose of this list is to provide of significant Italian films which is laudable, but I don't know if the particular implementation here is effective. "main" is a bit unusual. But as a list itself I don't object to it in principle, just in concept. FrozenPurpleCube 19:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry for my rusty English, can you find a better title? something like "List of some notable Italian films"? --Marvin the Happy Android 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some notable is another NPOV violation. Instead, I've moved it to "List of Italian films" and tagged it as incomplete. Deletion withdrawn. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:00, 12 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. W.marsh 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPSBabel[edit]

non-notable software failing WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed with incorrect use of Wikipedia articles as establishing notability. ju66l3r 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable, per nom. KazakhPol 20:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Firstly, WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline (and there's a lot of articles around about software that does not meet its criteria), and prods can be removed if you object to the deletion for any reason. Also I believe it is notable, as it is reasonably well known and popular among GPS users, and as it is included with and used by Google Earth it is installed on a lot of computers, and used by rather a lot of people (even if they're not aware of it). --Vclaw 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:SOFTWARE is based on the company product guideline (almost word for word) and the same restrictions apply: 1) multiple non-trivial publications and/or 2) trademark genericization. #2 is certainly not satisfied and #1 has 1 reference now? It is not a well noted piece of software (even its inclusion of Google Earth which I'd forgotten about is not a pronounced point of Google Earth's features). Within its limited genre of geo-location software it holds its own, but its general notability is highly limited and the first 20 pages of Ghits are primarily mirrors to download it than they are non-trivial publications (none that I skimmed) related to it. A chapter in 1 book is not "multiple" publications and is not even a whole publication. ju66l3r 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, proposed notability requirement satisfied by Mapping Hacks dedicating a chapter to the program (ISBN 0596007035 chapter 15 "Speak in Geotongues: GPSBabel to the Rescue") Ojw 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ju66l3r. The article doesn't mention any coverage, and WP:SOFT requires multiple coverage, so one chapter in one book isn't enough. Sandstein 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Sandstein 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extended proposed notability requirement satisfied by inclusion in GPS For Dummies, ISBN 0764569333 (esp. author's blog mentioning gpsbabel as favourite software) Ojw 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, I don't see any indication that this software is notably enough for an encyclopedia. If such an indication is provided I may change my mind. Keep due to being part of OS distrobutions. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would argue that GPSBabel is notable software. It is part of Debian Linux and part of the 'fink' system for getting Unix software on OS X. In addition to the Mapping Hacks book mentioned earlier, it is an integral part of an article in Make Magazine v07, pages 117 - 118, GPS Running Log. Cswingle Fri Nov 17 02:27:48 UTC 2006
Keep. GPSBabel is the leading piece of software for geographcal coordinate file conversion. It is well known by users of GPS recievers. --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 12:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think GPS applications (and the need for interfaces) is going to continue to get more important, and this is part of the GPS software ecology. John Broughton | Talk 18:27, 17 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 13:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic Sunrise[edit]

Non-notable group, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Repeated speedy deletions just keep resulting in the page getting re-created [8], so moving to AfD to settle the matter. Recommend re-speedy deletion, and page protection --Elonka 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend WP:SALT. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...BTW, do the Chiodos and its band members qualify under WP:MUSIC? All have notability tags on their pages. Tubezone 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With no headlining tours and only one album on an established label, it doesn't look like it; if you feel it's appropriate, nom them. - Che Nuevara 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compare it against the deleted versions. If it is a true recreation, then it is a candidate for speedy deletion and it should be salted. - Che Nuevara 20:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure, nonnotable group. KazakhPol 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Spinach Dip 21:59, 12 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 13:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Hilder[edit]

Non-notable conspiracy theorist. Appears to have made two videos "9-11 the greatest lie ever sold" and "The GOP - Grand ol Pedophiles" - both helpfully available on Google Video - but looking through the first few pages of google I don't see any hits from outside the walled garden of conspiracy theorists. Nothing on google news either. GabrielF 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JoshuaZ 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable with no outside sources, and deny all knowledge of this process and arrest anyone who asks about it. Or, y'know, don't, but still delete it. - Che Nuevara 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Elicits ZERO hits in a Google News search. Walled Garden conspiracy theory blogosphere stuff. Morton Devonshire^Yo 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, it should also be discovered if the links to google in the article are copyright violations or not. If they cannot be sourced back to the copyright owner giving permission they should be removed as violations of WP:C. We also have a complete lack of WP:RS and WP:V. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, an ad and likely vanity as well. Spinach Dip 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN WP:VSCA. - Crockspot 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in major verifiable independent sources. Tinfoil hat in place. Edison 06:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and all that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brimba 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Tbeatty 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nominated. NN and extra crufty (not to be confused with "extra crispy", KFC style). JungleCat talk/contrib 06:19, 14 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. W.marsh 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Mark[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable comic: "Jack and Mark" plus "James Harden" gives zero Google hits, as does "que inc" plus "james harden" and "que inc" plus "jack and mark". Fails WP:V thoroughly. As the article now admits, it is an unreleased school comic by a student, so fails WP:V thoroughly. Fram 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NFT. Sandstein 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always feel bad when I find an article about something that is obviously important to someone else, but is completely non-notable in the broader scheme of things. I worry that by rejecting this kind of thing we may be accidentally trampling on someone's fragile ego, or destroying some kind soul's precious dreams. I fear for my underlying human sensitivity, and my sympathy for other poor spirits. But then I get over it, and gleefully shout Delete ! WMMartin 20:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. John Broughton | Talk 18:53, 17 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. W.marsh 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Youth Theatre[edit]

No indication of significance for this theater group. The article does have as sources newpaper pages stating that they have performed, but to me this is not the nontrivial kind of coverage we'd want to have an article about this. Author's explanation of the notability of this group is "I believe an article is required as it an Irish Theatre group and contributes to Irish Theatre in general." However, there's nothing magical about Irish theatre groups that gives them automatic significance. As far as I can tell, this is what we'd call a "community theater" here- every town has several of these but they aren't generally significant. Friday (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term "trivial" in the context of notability refers to published items that are no more than directory items. The references includes here are non-trivial and adequately establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at all the links again, and what they establish is that this a youth theater group that puts on shows. Unless Wikipedia is trying to be a directory of all organizations, I don't see how this makes it an encyclopedic topic. Friday (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete again. No claim to notability. Providing links to media reports about the shows they put on are not claims to notability. Sandstein 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete absolutely no evidence of notability. Sorry, kids. Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's not Broadway, folks.--WaltCip 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its part of the Irish theatre scene. Exiledone 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone started a wiki project who's goal was to detail anything and everything relevant to any theater activities in Ireland, I bet they would want this content. Friday (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete qualifies as a speedy under WP:CSD#A7 as a group with no asserted notability. Eluchil404 09:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm of English ancestory, so I don't much care for the Irish in general. That said, this youth theater group bares little significance in the grand scheme of Irish Theater, and should be deleted as it is trivial and lacks general relevance.
Delete. It's a youth group that might easily disappear in a year or two if funding dries up. If someone had the goal of detailing anything and everything relevant to any theater activities in Ireland, I bet they would want this content AS A PARAGRAPH in a larger article, and I'll bet they could find it easily with a google search or by getting a brochure from the group. John Broughton | Talk 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John. --TheOtherBob 19:40, 17 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. W.marsh 01:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest FurFest[edit]

This convention has no claim to notability. It had only roughly 1,000 attendees last year. It is copy of an article from wikifur, a wiki which by consensus is considered non notable. [9] [10] [11] BigE1977 20:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, there are sort-of claims to notability ("it grew to 1066 attendees"), but without any third-party (i.e. non-Furry-related) coverage, we can safely assume it's non-notable. Sandstein 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Furrycruft (sad that this word has to be used daily on AfD). --- RockMFR 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Six years of history (to be seven this week - it's on this Thursday through Sunday, already filled up both main hotel and overflow), and that's not even considering the time it was the furry track at Duckon, which started in 1993 (the track continued, but note the significant drop in 2000 as the furry part transferred to MFF). Significant coverage in Vanity Fair [12], which unfortunately resulted in the convention actively refusing further press requests - not that that stopped MTV's Sex2k doing a TV episode on it two years later called Plushies and Furries (transcript). An incorporated charity ("Midwest Furry Fandom"), with revenues over $40000 last year. Considered one of the three "major furry conventions" in the US (compare Anthrocon, Further Confusion). GreenReaper 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public service announcement: The above links feature disturbing pictures of grown people in costumes. Well, the Vanity Fair article is not actually about the event, it just uses the event as a backdrop to report on furries in general, and in the TV report, only one interviewed person mentions it once in passing. No indication of notability under WP:ORG for the charity. Sandstein 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sandstein and RockMFR. Putting aside the inherent weirdness of it all, the article is basically an ad. --Aaron 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing Delete - obvious ad for non-notable subject. Moreschi 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and clean up, as 1) this is notable within the domain of interest, and 2) furry fandom is notable enough to have not only its own entry series on Wikipedia, but a running Wiki on Wikia. See notes from GreenReaper above for notability contentions. Granted, this - and a few others - are almost direct copy from WikiFur. --Dennisthe2 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, being "notable within the domain of interest" isn't enough, it's got to be notable enough to have substantial third-party coverage. Also, this isn't about furry fandom in general, but about one particular event. Sandstein 05:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, indeed. With this in mind, I would then say weak delete - only because the article exists on Wikifur already. --Dennisthe2 03:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aaron. Walled garden article. Does not even say what a "furry fan" is. Could be people who root for the Tribbles in Star Trek, or who donate to PETA, or who wear mink stoles, or who need a shave. No evidence of notability in the form of multiple independent coverage in mainstream sources. Edison 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article appears to be a copy and paste from the Wikifur article here http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Midwest_FurFest . If this could be cleaned up I would vote to Keep. Anomo 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, possibly merge information with more notable subject article, perhaps furry fandom. - Gilgamesh 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reluctantly; a 1000-person conference once per year isn't notable, in my opinion. I think there ought to be a separate article called Furry conventions, which would include full info on minor conventions, including others that also have short articles now (and should be deleted); such an article would also have small summary sections and wikilinks to articles about major convention (there seems to be at least one; I didn't go through the list of wikipedia articles here to see if there were others). John Broughton | Talk 18:41, 17 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 hermit crab, with a link to Wikibooks added. DS 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hermit crab care[edit]

A how-to guide on hermit crab care. Merge has been proposed, but pretty much all the encyclopedic information is already in Hermit crab and the entry on Wikibooks for this is far better already. Most of the info is simply a price guide or silly advice (do not shake crab). Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Wickethewok 20:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Delete, and no merge into Hermit crab. I suggest preserving the Dos and Do Nots in WP:BJAODN. "Don't drop crab..." Hmmm, I didn't know that! ;) –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and also because the author just seems to want to promote his Geocities page about hermit crabs... Sandstein 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another person mistaking Wikipedia for free webhosting/advertisement. Xtifr _tälk 10:37, 13 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. Looking at the amount of edits being made to it, I realised this isn't even worth an AfD. _JD^talk 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamcast 2[edit]

The article is based on the hoax by IGN.com, and even IGN has already officially announced it as a hoax. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:41, 12 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 keep. Might have gone differently if nominator supplied a reason. — CharlotteWebb 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terje Isungset[edit]

Nominated by an IP editor without completing the AfD listing. Abstain. GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC with several albums. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly. He and his albums have been reviewed in multiple non-trivial published works on All About Jazz[13], the BBC ([14] and [15]), and the Norwegian Music Information Centre[16]. He has released five albums, including at least one on major Norwegian label NORCD and one on major Norwegian label Simax [17]. He has made four national tours (of Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Hungary) in the past year alone[18] and also visited Poland (don't forget Poland!). He's also one of the world's best-known experimental musicians and has collaborated with many notable European world music and jazz musicians. He's known as one of Europe's premier percussionists. Possibly the most notable individual I've seen show up in AfD. --Charlene 05:37, 13 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 per CSD G4. _JD^talk 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of female porn stars with long nails[edit]

Unencylopedic, pointless. Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GTBacchus^(talk) 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete pretty much empty Will ^{(message ♪)} 20:50, 12 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. W.marsh 01:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Vomit[edit]

Performed a Google search for ""Dragon Vomit" cocktail", no hits. Then just "Dragon Vomit", no drinks-related hits. Also performed search on the apparently related drink "Buffalo Runs", again no hits. I think this exists only as an idea in the author's mind. Gekedo 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Spinach Dip 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Proposer) and Comment Although, I admit I might just try it! =) Gekedo 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked on google and found a number of references, e.g. [19] Mrbowtie 21:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The single reference there is a forum post, from two days ago...with one reply...Gekedo 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Touché. Keep withdrawn Mrbowtie 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have a reference but I've totally had this drink before on two different occations. It's not a popular drink and might be seen more as a right of passage than anything.

Everyone should try it at least once. Saltandlite 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - user has total of two edits; the other was to the talk page of the article. John Broughton | Talk 18:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This still doesn't meet WP:V Gekedo 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki. This is not a cookbook or a bar guide. Vegaswikian 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. John Broughton | Talk 18:55, 17 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. W.marsh 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ganguli[edit]

This article has been deleted five times under WP:PROD or WP:CSD. I'm nominating it mainly to settle the issue, as people are edit-warring about whether to remove the PROD tags that have once again accumulated (no, this doesn't make sense to me, either).

I'm not really sure whether we should just delete this or try and clean it up. On one hand, the guy has a surprising amount of press coverage about whatever it is he does (see this older version), but on the other hand, none of it seems to indicate substantial notability under WP:BIO. More to the point, it still reads like an advertisement in this last incarnation, and judging from the history, it would need someone really perseverant to try and make this into an encyclopedic biographical article. Sandstein 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the points made by the nominator, but would like to throw WP:AUTO into the ring also.--cj | talk 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Reading vanity articles and advertising like this makes me want to go and wash my hands. WMMartin 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a 22-year old who has organized ONE conference/festival/whatever so far, per this, with a second scheduled for 2007 (per an external link in the article). All of the other external links in the article are to work he did as a member of an organization (Connect UK), some back as far as 2001 - when he was 15 and (I think this is obvious) not in charge of anything at all. With less than 300 google hits, I think it's safe to kill this article. Perhaps an administrator could salt it so that it's impossible to recreate without subsequent administrator approval? John Broughton | Talk 18:51, 17 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 speedily deleted by NCurse as an empty article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of current and former United States Senators, by state[edit]

This article contains no real information. —Markles 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't even a list - it's just a pair of navigation templates which are already transcluded on most of the relevant pages. Possible {{db-empty}}. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta concur with Zetawoof. Going Speedy Delete per A1, I'll post the template. --Dennisthe2 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh: removed. Replacing with explanation. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that worked. Closing. Zetawoof^(ζ) 16:56, 13 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wartburg Theological Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Lutheran Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:56, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:58, 12 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 keep, bad-faith nom, POINT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg[edit]

This article is similar in scope to another article, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia whih was deleted for no reason by two vandals, Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is not deserving of a Wikipedia entry, therefore I am acting in their spirit and nominating this for deletion. 2similar 21:58, 12 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 by Xoloz: "A7/G11". Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silentsleeper[edit]

A Google search for this website yields only the site itself, and the name of several profiles at various social networking sites. Fails WP:CORP because I can't find any external information on the company. Also fails WP:WEB: see here and here. In addition, the text for the article was copied from the website of the organization/service. Also, nothing is on the talk page (despite the {{hangon}}), and the speedy delete was removed by the creator of the page. I can't even tell what the site is about, Piracy? Gracenotes ^T § 21:59, 12 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 and redirect to Procfs. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/proc/meminfo[edit]

Not notable. Doc aberdeen 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I'm the creator of the /proc/meminfo article). Google lists 213,000 hits for "/proc/meminfo". I haven't used it much myself, but I'm under the impression that it's an important interface to know about when programming Linux utilities. I provided a link to a redhat explanation in the article. *Keep. -- Creidieki 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - this really seems to break the {{la}} template... --- RockMFR 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this 1 paragraph of information all alone in a separate article, rather than in procfs, which contains an expansion request? Uncle G 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the expansion request seems to be requesting that the specific section (which is the "supported under" section). But considering the current length of /proc/fs, and the fact that I don't care to write any more at the moment, I'd be happy to consent to a merge (at least until there's more material). I seem to be the only one to have made a substantive edit to the article -- does that mean we can do a speedy merge? -- Creidieki 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge - per Uncle G -- wtfunkymonkey 01:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G has the right idea. Merge. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per the above. --Czj 07:21, 15 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 all except the reissue, and I wonder if "The Heartless Control Everything" is a song about Wikipedia? ~ trialsanderrors 05:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiodos[edit]

I am adding the following articles to the nomination:

They are all albums by the band. The first three were not released under any label; only the last one (and its reissue) was, hence my comment below. - Che Nuevara 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this band may have notability issues per WP:MUSIC. Not being a music expert, I thought it'd be best to let the Human League Of Distinguished Music Knowledgable Editors discuss them. No vote from me. Tubezone 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~With only one record with a credible label and no apparent headlining tour, my tendency is towards delete. I'm willing to reconsider, however, if convincing evidence of notability arises.~~ (see below) - Che Nuevara 22:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see one relatively recent review in Real Detroit Weekly[20], and some indication of international touring, but there's just not enough here for me to be able to signoff on the concept of "notability" per WP:MUSIC. As with CheNuevara's comment, I'm open to reconsidering my position if further proof of notability emerges, but in absence of that, the articles look a bit too self-promotional. --Elonka 22:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is pretty ridiculous. Chiodos has opened for Matchbook Romance and Atreyu on national tours, along with Warped and a European tour... They're on Equal Vision Records...MySpace has 215,000 friends and over 3 million hits. These guys are huge. This article needs a little sourcing; I'm sure a little digging will dredge up radio airplay and probably video airplay as well. Some of the side articles can go, but I'm flabbergasted that this band is even being considered for deletion. Chubbles1212 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of MySpace friends is not exactly what I'd call a good indicator of notability. And it's nowhere near a reliable source, so it's inapplicable. - Che Nuevara 23:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mention it because it's often an indicator of a strong fanbase, which can be verified through other third-party sources. I just added a slew of press references to the article which should help prove the point. Chubbles1212 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being in close proximity to notable people doesn't automatically create notability. Opening for Matchbook Romance and Atreyu?? Who cares? Even if they opened for the Rolling Stones, they'd still be nobodies in an encyclopedic scheme of things. Crabapplecove 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it matters quite a bit; these are major-label bands on national and international tours. As I see it, Chiodos clearly passes clauses 3 and 5 of WP:MUSIC, and should at this point be properly verified with citations. Furthermore, I use Wikipedia as a source for information on bands all the time, and this is precisely the kind of group I'd be looking for. Chubbles1212 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All (I typed this all once but it didn't save): Per Chubbles1212. Also Billboard Magazine exposure shown here. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All. Large band and easily meets number four on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles in WP:Notability which is defined as "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)." Tours internationally even. I even bought their CD at Circuit City. That's big enough for me. Dark jedi requiem 06:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be argumentative, but they've only released one album on any record label, according to the article. Releasing the same album twice is not the same as releasing two albums, - Che Nuevara 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the very least the separate album and band member articles should be merged into the main article. I also find it bothersome that this band has multiple articles, while veteran blues players with multiple indy label releases, that easily pass WP:MUSIC criteria, like Lil' Ed and Dave Weld (note the redlinks, and, yes, I have a bias) don't even have Wikipedia articles at all. Tubezone 08:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it important that those are redlinks? They've always been redlinks. Go ahead and create them. You're saying that like they've been determined to be non-notable - but they haven't been. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chiodos per nationwide concert tour, and The Heartless Control Everything, All's Well That Ends Well (album) per WP:MUSIC. Delete The Chiodos Brothers. (acoustic), The Best Way to Ruin Your Life, and All's Well That Ends Well (Reissue), as reissues and self-released albums fail WP:MUSIC. If the band satisfies WP:MUSIC, so do the individual band members. Ohconfucius 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to get behind this solution: Keep Chiodos and All's Well That Ends Well, merge the reissue into the orig. album article, weak keep The Heartless Control Everything, and delete the rest. As of now, there's nothing that I can see in the band members' articles that's not in the band's article, so a provisional merge into the main article without prejudice against recreation is appropriate to avoid duplicating content. - Che Nuevara 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of the articles, but the reissue should be merged with the original album article. No reason to delete any of it now that it's clear the band meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idk if this is the official artical about the band, but they were featured in AP the magazine alternativepress.com they are amazing and they should seriously be taken seriously. They are amazing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.235.63.26 (talk • contribs)

Keep all except the merge the reissue. Clearly and obviously notable. Unfocused 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think self-issue albums warrant their own articles, although clearly they can be mentioned in (aka redirected to) the band's article. As far as the band members go, see my previous comment. - Che Nuevara 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all articles. According to Wikipedia:Notability (music) A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band,) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" and "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)." The band meets both of these. They are currently on a national tour with Atreyu and Every Time I Die and will headline their own tour afterwards. Not to mention they have played Warped Tour in 2006 and Bamboozle as well. They are signed to Equal Vision Records founded in 1990 and has a pretty impressive roster. I have no idea why this is even being debated. This band is huge. -Lindsey8417 01:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This must be some alternative definition of the word "huge" I'm not familiar with, as you are now the second person to use it. They topped at 164 on the BB chart and have not had a BB single. John Legend is "huge". While I'm willing to concede that these guys are notable, maybe even well-known, "huge" is going a little too far. By the way, no one has yet addressed the issues I raised of a) self-released albums and b) member articles which are entirely redundant with the band article. Those need to be merged. - Che Nuevara 02:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already tagged Craig Owens, Bradley Bell (musician), and Matt Goddard with merge tags, as well as the reissue album. That's fine with me. Chubbles1212 02:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Chubbles. Assuming the pages are kept (it looks rather certain they will be) I would be happy to do the merges myself. - Che Nuevara 06:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles listed per the comments made above, notability appears to be satisfied. RFerreira 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If having their cd at chain supermarkets across the nation like Target and Walmart is any indication of being even a LITTLE notable, I would say Chiodos has more than met the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.243.86 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Taldo[edit]

This looks like an excuse to link Wikipedia to some videos of someone swearing rather than an attempt to contribute encyclopedically. This person is hardly notable and the tone is hardly NPOV. Seems we would be better without the article - especially as the links to the swearing have been removed for copyright reasons. Spartaz 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 21:05, 16 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. DS 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party of American Bolsheviks, PAB[edit]

I knew someone would try to post an article on this entity since I saw the (self-proclaimed) "chairman" announce it on the RevolutionaryLeft.com message boards. Entirely non-notable, no evidence of real-world existence, no sources. —Sesel 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Total and complete WP:N failure. --Aaron 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bordering on non-existant. Punkmorten 22:48, 12 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 per WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC. --Core desat 04:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (rapper)[edit]

Not only is this page painfully POV in its eulogy, with quotes such as "He would have been champ for the entire seven weeks", and "the New York Police picked him up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time", but the subject of the article would appear to be non-notable. "Twilight rapper" gets a grand total of 2 Google hits, while his nickname "Tha Futcha" gets only 140, a large whack of which would appear to be Myspace. Basically, being a contestant on a couple of radio shows does not give sufficient notability for a reputable encyclopedia. Moreschi 22:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destined to bless the Delete Danny Lilithborne 23:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Folantin 10:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the article reads like a bling-bling inspirational tale: 'the little homeboy who didn't give up'. Maybe if he could spell his own nickname correctly I might be more sympathetic. Incidentally (I speak from experience), there is a 'speedy delete' category for bands etc. without any album releases or other claim to notability (criterion A10 if I recall). It might save an acrimonious AfD — it's so much easier on everyone if these sorts of articles just slip away quietly... The Crying Orc 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yall can say whatever yall want, this is not going away. This is not going away. Word up. - A Different World - Tuesday, November 14, 2006. 7:45 P.M. (Happy Birthday Obie Trice, Ja Rule Hater)

I'm telling yall, if theres no more corrections to be made, then I'm going to get rid of the grey thing that's on top. - A Different World - Tuesday, November 14, 2006. 7:49 P.M.

This is not about making corrections to the article. It is about getting rid of an article about someone who, at this stage in their career at least, does not merit an encyclopedia article, according to Wikipedia's policies. I see that you did get rid of the 'grey thing at the top' (i.e. the deletion notice). Please don't do that again. It is very disruptive, and likely to be regarded as vandalism. This discussion lasts about 5 days (so till the 17th, then), and after that an administrator will review the arguments and either keep or delete the article, accordingly. It's best to say your bit, and then sit tight till the decision comes in. The Crying Orc 09:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. May or may not be tha futcha, but does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Robertissimo 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This seems more like a fan page then a bio. Most of it seems like Hearsay. Tonker83 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, since the author hasn't read WP:OWN - or for that matter WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, WP:DICK... I could go on, but why? --Elaragirl ||||||^Talk|Count 17:11, 16 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 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Wizards[edit]

Rumored team, Wikipedia is not the place to start or spread rumours (WP:NOT crystal ball). Punkmorten 22:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-enclyclopedic, not notable, WP:NOT a Crystal Ball, lacks sources. -- wtfunkymonkey 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 — no assertion of notability. Fe e zo (Talk) 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick Google search implies that the team's entry into AF2 was contingent on some reality TV show, which has since fallen through. Nothing regarding the franchise appears on the AF2 site, so "Crystal Ball" seems to apply. Caknuck 04:48, 13 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. W.marsh 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jar[edit]

This article was previously deleted here. I maintain that this is a non-notable webcomic, I doubt it has been reviewed by reliable third party sources. I have also contacted the admin who undeleted the article here about my concerns for the article. But I really do not think it can be saved. - Hahnch e n 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB and WP:RS, or possibly redirect to Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki.--TBCΦtalk? 02:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps add a note about it to SGVY's page. --humblefool ® 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; its strength is that it holds information on things that no other encyclopedia does. Famous works of art are in Encyclopedia Britannica; not so famous are in Wikipedia. I say this as a historian (no, really, I am one): wikipedia could be an amazing source for historians of the future. But not if it plays fast and loose with the delete button. This comic existed, it had readers, it is worthy of inclusion. By deleting an article on some arbitrary standard of "notable", you are destroying future historical records. *jb 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You exist. You probably have acquaintances. You are destroying future historical records by not detailing your personal life on a Wikipedia page. Oh wait, I'm being facetious. - Hahnch e n 02:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 22:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and TBC. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The original decision at the first AFD still applies as well since apparently not much has changed. RFerreira 05:15, 17 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 ~ trialsanderrors 06:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution Music[edit]

See first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution music canada

This article was created in October 2006 and incorrectly tagged as reposted AfD content, for which I deleted it. It has since been pointed out that the article was not a direct repost of the deleted content, so I have recreated it.

However, I do believe that it fails Wikiepdia's notability rules. It does not verify any of its claims of notability, nor does it provide any external sources which suggest that it has had the impact it claims.

I'm not aware of any precedent about record labels - they're not mentioned at WP:MUSIC - and I thought that the best thing to do now would be to put this to a community discussion.Robdurbar 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few more details to try and stimulate discussion. The company's website is here. They appear to have released a few compilation albums and they have a show on a local radio station... but there's no evidence that these have had any impact, nor that the albums have been released outside of their local area. --Robdurbar 09:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—while WP:MUSIC doesn't directly suggest any criteria for notability of labels, it does discuss what constitutes a "more important indie label", and this certainly doesn't meet that definition. If a label isn't important enough to justify keeping a band, I don't think it's important enough to justify keeping itself. Xtifr _tälk 10:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not sure that WP:MUSIC is the best set of criteria to judge a record label, tho I like Xtifr's spin on it. I think WP:CORP is the best criteria to judge against. The article provides no sources, reliable or not. In review the company's web page, they have a "news" section, but all it seems to be is listing of the gigs (and cancellations there of) for their acts.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:23, 18 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 consencus to delete, aka merge, also known as "keep" in some states. - 152.91.9.144 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDB (database)[edit]

Non-notable, proprietary product, little if any support from third party developers. Topic should be covered by non-company-specific technology page such as Event Stream Processing, etc. Ronnotel 17:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not state why this particular software is notable. Reliable sourcing wouldn't hurt either. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete A few responses
- KDB is notable for its wide spread use in the financial industry.
  - KDB is the most common solution for implementing a ticker plant, an application that stores trade and quote data from an exchange.
  - KDB's performance when handling large amounts of financial data is orders of magnitude better than a standard relational database such as Oracle or SQL Server
- The fact that KDB is proprietary is not a reason for deletion, Wikipedia contains numerous articles on proprietary products, in particular SQL Server, Sybase, DB2 and Oracle.
- The fact that KDB lacks third party support is not particularly relevant given it's dominance in its niche.
- While it has some of the same functionality, KDB is not a Stream Processing Engine (SPE). An SPE works by querying streaming data as it arrives without the need to first store the data; KDB first stores streaming data in an in-memory database for it executes queries.

The entry could be improved and certainly it is lacking references. It might make sense to merge this entry with the one on K (programming language). The K and KDB are tightly linked: KDB is developed in K and K itself is little used outside of KDB applications.

I do use both K and KDB and I am a fan of both, but I have no association with either Kx Systems or First Derivatives. Some of the points mentioned above might be difficult to document and I wouldn't include them in the actual entry. They are nonetheless true; I think anyone in the financial industry who deals with trade and quote data would find them uncontroversial. -- Abcarter 18:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 22:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of comments, I strongly encourage Abcarter to go ahead and boldly merge as proposed. If anyone objects to your solution, you'll know soon enough. ;-) Un focused 07:42, 15 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. --Core desat 04:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Nerds are Unpopular[edit]

Nonnotable Internet essay that has few links. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn teenage angst blogcruft. Leibniz 23:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn essay. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable with few links to the page itself. --HisSpaceResearch 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR. Put it on myspace or something. ColourBurst 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The essay may or may not be notable, but it is good. Cardamon 10:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay is TL;DR. Anomo 04:51, 14 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. See also prior AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democrat celebrities[edit]

This article has two inherent, uncorrectable problems.

First, the criteria used for determining what "endorsing the Democratic Party" or being a "Democrat celebrity" could be interpreted vaguely. This could encompass asking for votes for the Democratic Party, a number of Democratic candidates, or a single Democratic candidate in public or private, in either an official or unofficial capacity. This could be interpreted as including celebrities who have voted for Democrats (just once or consistently) or celebrities who have registered Democrat. This could include celebrities who have given money to the Democratic party. This could include a person who appeared on the Tonight Show in 1976 and told Johnny Carson that he or she was voting for Jimmy Carter. The possibilities are endless.

Similarly, the criteria used for determining what a "celebrity" is can be vague. This apparently includes actors, comedians, and writers, and it could include atheletes, TV chefs, journalists, businesspeople, and possibly even politicians (such as Bill Clinton). Quantifying the degree of fame that someone needs to appear on this list is impossible. Does a minor actor in a TV series count as a celebrity? What about a local comedian? A backup player on an NFL team? A pulp fiction writer? The owner of a national supermarket chain?

So, for these two reasons, the article and the list should be deleted. (I would also advocate deleting the Republican equivalent of this page, in case people wonder about my political leanings.) George J. Bendo 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, vague, and subjective. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Requires WP:NPOV violation to work; what defines a celebrity? 23skidoo 03:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a third inherent problem -- the use of "Democrat" as an adjective is POV. [21]
Delete. Completely unsourced POV. Also, if I count correctly, there are seven celebrities on the list who can't be Democrats because they're citizens of countries that don't have a Democratic Party. (PS to the nominator: "Demoncrat"?) --Charlene 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!. Change "Celebrity" to Public Figure and you end the discussion of who is or is not a celebrity. And it's so easy to source this article; we're all aware that "public figures" will do or say just about anything to get their name in the press. If you're upset about semantics, change "Democrat" to "left-wing" or some other word. Most of the people listed (George Clooney & Dave Matthews come to mind) wear the tag "liberal" like a badge of honor and call themselves such on frequent occasion. If celebrity influence on elections was of no matter we would have no Michael Moore, or Bono, or Madonna; and to a lesser degree no Ron Silver, no... uh... wait, I can't think of any other conservative celebrities of note. And as is said on the article's talk page, we have already solved the issue of exactly what Democrat Party we're talking about, and again, if there is ever any doubt, just source more freakin' celebrities. Matzoball1982 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no List of Republican celebrities and there shouldn't be. "Republican" has various meanings in various parts of the world. In the Commonwealth a republican is one that advocates the dismantling of the monarchy; Cherie Booth, the wife of UK Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, would be considered a republican celebrity, as would members of the left wing of the Bloc Québécois. And again, dozens of countries have Republican parties. --Charlene 06:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: "Republican" isn't confusing if you cite the article on the U.S. Republican party: Republican Party (United States), just as "Democrat" isn't confusing if done like this: Democrat. -- John Broughton | Talk 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep! Good to know who the good guys are. 10:34, 13 November 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.166.233 (talk • contribs) }
Delete. POV fork. AFAIK, all celebrities, esp. Hollywood celebrities, are Democrat liberal.--WaltCip 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Rename Why does every category or article with slight flaws have to end up in the scrap heap? There is a case for keeping this article and any equivalents in some form or other. Perhaps List of US Democrat celebrities would be better. To delete this entirely would be drastic. Moreover, any person with an article in their name on Wikipedia would have to be a reasonably well-known "celebrity" or they wouldn't have an article in their name. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest a person should be included in an article like this, then I see no reason why those names shouldn't stay. Delete the unsourced ones by all means! --Dovea 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - use a category instead. I agree that it's interesting to know which celebrities endorse multiple Democratic candidates and contribute large sums of money to Democratic candidates and the party (as opposed to someone who endorsed his/her local candidate or even a candidate for the U.S. Senate), but this can be done with a category (Category:U.S. celebrities who endorse Democrats, for example). It's certainly verifiable, and limited in number. John Broughton | Talk 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The equivalent categories for the Republican and Democratic Parties (and several British parties) have been nominated for deletion. (I found the Wikipedia article through the category discussion.) George J. Bendo 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vauge criteria, what consitutes endorsement? Even if that could be solved, it should be a catagory, not an encyclopedia article as it is simply a list. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe a renaming is in order instead, like Dovea said making it the List of US Democrat celebrities. Plus it would be quite easy for somebody that leans to the Republican and or conseravite side of issues to vote to delete it just for their own personal reasons. MrKing84 07:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for the blanket statement, MrKing.--WaltCip 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Ha, you know it's true. Oh yeah not all Hollywood celeberties are liberal, Ronald Reagan ring a bell. I bet's he's rolling over in his grave. MrKing84 08:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This proposed renaming still leaves open the problem of determining what is a celebrity. The only criteria proposed for determining whether someone is a celebrity (inclusion in Wikipedia) does not seem like a viable one. George J. Bendo 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the words "celeberty" and "star" are being given to every B-list movie actor and 70's sitcom star in the world now and days. Just look at VH1 reality shows and Dancing with the Stars. Their is no criteria for determining who is a celeberty.
New proposal - change the article name to List of people who have endorsed the US Democratic Party. All the names in the list would need to be cited. That would put paid to the word celebrity and yet not tear the article to shreds. Any thoughts? Dovea 19:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This does remove the issue of "celebrity" from the article, but it still leaves open what the term "endorse" means. Does it mean endorsing the whole party, individual candidates from the party, or issues that are generally supported by the Democratic Party? Does donating money or appearing at a Democratic Party event in either an official or unofficial capacity qualify as "endorsement"? Does membership qualify as "endorsement"? If politicians from the Democratic Party campaign for each other, does that qualify as "endorsement"? This problem is still unsolved. George J. Bendo 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I'm crazy, but I don't see that the instant page might significantly be differentiated from List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party, which, with its Republican and Libertarian counterparts, was AfDed in late July, such that the present article might well have merited G4 (irrespective of the July AfD, I'd surely support deletion here in view of the sundry fine arguments advanced supra, but I suppose I mean in specific to ask those who support keeping whether they think there to have been some deficiency in the arguments advanced either there or at this AfD or, in the absence of such deficiency, how the present article might be understood as better to address those arguments than did the deleted article). Joe 06:38, 17 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 all. References have not been forthcoming; if someone believes this is notable enough and wishes to write a referenced article about this game, they are welcome to do so, but my feeling is the articles in their current totally unsourced state is not something they will be able to expand upon. Better rewrite from scratch, citing sources. Kimchi.sg 11:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emogame[edit]

Non-notable web game with a slew of crufty related articles. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - quality seems inline with most other video game articles, notability seems iffy but it does fetch a few ghits. I'm no tconvinced that this article should go. -- 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtfunkymonkey (talk • contribs) .
Weak keep'. Emogame 2.5 (the Anti-Bush game) received a bit of media coverage, if I recall correctly. These are all fairly notable flash games. Possibly merge them together, though such an article might be excessively long. --- RockMFR 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tristam 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, plenty of coverage a few years ag. Links forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft, not notable. --Improv 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at least Emogame, has multiple media coverage. I'm almost inclined to delete all, though, if only to allow someone to write one short encyclopedic article on all this. Sandstein 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft = many editors and nobody paying attention to Wikipedia policies. Maybe they're worthy of an article (I haven't seen the evidence yet), but then you might as well start from scratch. WP:N, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOT a game guide, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 18 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 - Yomangani ^talk 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Up Your End[edit]

The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. They do not show up on Allmusic, and the previous name, Out of Step, is the name of a blues band with 1 album. A Google search for "Hold up Your End"+Brantford shows 57 results (12 unique). A search for "Hold Up Your End"+"Countdown to Destruction" shows 2 results. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is an example of a non-notable band. Chubbles1212 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Their Web site doesn't appear to have been updated since June. Fails WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. More importantly, no reliable third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:00, 17 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. This should probably be renominated in due time if it isn't cleaned up anytime soon. ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEATS[edit]

Page created by self-professed organizer of the event. Numerous POV/advert/style problems resulting from autobio nature of the article. Limited notability (under 1000 Ghits for the festival name and all sponsoring groups or self-references). ju66l3r 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN theatrical event --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am unconvined about them being not notable. There are a lot of Google hits, inclusing at least this one article, and I did not expend much effort so there may be more. I'll agree that the article reads like an advertisement, which means it should be copy-editted, not deleted. -- Whpq 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. While I couldn't find the magic link that clearly established the notabilty of this event (the most interesting article I found was here), the overall coverage was enough to convince me of just sufficient notability. What impressed me was that there was coverage on British, German, Belgian and Luxemburgian (?) sites. It's close, but I think there's enough to merit keeping the article. -Kubigula (ave) 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, per Kubigula. The town of Ghent (in Dutch, unfortunately, [22] advertises the local theatrical group "De Waanzin" (meaning "Lunacy") by mentioning that they won FEATS twice. Notability should not therefore be an issue at all, self-promotion, however, is a different matter.--Pan Gerwazy 10:10, 14 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 13:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Elimination of Child Labour[edit]

One-sentence stub about a non-notable group. I put a speedy tag on it and User:Stifle removed it and said "I think working to eliminate child labour is notable". Crabapplecove 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable organization. Articles fails to establish how it passes notability guielines at WP:ORG. Google seach for "Association for the Elimination of Child Labour -wikipedia" gets 28 hits, all of them trivial mentions of the group in reports about child labor in general. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7: nonnotable group of people. Eric119 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noble as the cause may be, it fails [[WP:ORG], and cites no sources. -- Whpq 14:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 21:14, 16 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.