Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 14 November 16 >

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 WP:SNOW delete. 1ne 06:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon McLaughlin[edit]

Jon McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Assistant tennis coach at U. of Arkansas. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Delete per nomination. The fact that the author of this article tried to blank out this AFD (see history) doesn't help this case either. Head coach, probably, but I don't see why an assistant coach needs a Wikipedia article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like how they even have a photo of him "patrolling the sidelines." ROFL. Missvain 00:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah thats classic.Wikipediarules2221 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The use of "vanity" in AFD discussions is now discouraged. Please instead use "conflict of interest", per WP:COI. Jpe|ob 04:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Come back when he's promoted to head tennis coach (and we'll delete him then as well)! --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COI and fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not so sure about COI and VANITY, but right now it seems to fail BIO. Dredge up a few articles from independent sources and I'll be moved to Keep. Mishatx 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Wikipediarules2221 03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt - There's a "Preceded by" template at the bottom, which means somebody may try to create the other articles on that template. Who really gives a flying flip about the assistant coach!!?? As per nom... Spawn Man 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. It's unlikely that there would be a lot of published sources about an assistant tennis coach. --Metropolitan90 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page about a non-notable person. Spinach Dip 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough for a biography. Atlantis Hawk 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - def nn. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to be a notable assistant coach and fails to meet WP:Bio standards.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO by a long shot. Jcam 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It violates WP:BIO, and the fact that the creator of the article tried to blank this page doesn't help, either. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:07, 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 deleted, and then copied to the author's userspace. DS 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zelda Age[edit]

OR, no sources. Originally PRODded and PROD2'd, the original author removed the tag and made a personal attack on the editor who was gracious enough to let them know that the prod had been placed on their article, going so far as to say, I have original content, and you cant stop me. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete — Delete per nomination. Signed by a certain "Michael, Boise, ID", and the overall article is highly speculative and seems more like a blog rant than an article. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [edit conflict]Delete - yep, it's original content alright. The catch is that we can stop him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether this is going to meet with the creator's approval, but I've suggested userfication on the article's talk page. He seems attached to the work (which is probably a recipe for disaster around here anyway), so perhaps this would be the fairest solution. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per above, stupid article. Missvain 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per all above. It does sound like a blog as Kungming2 pointed out. James086 Talk | Contribs 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. "I have original content, and you cant stop me." lolol! Pwned. I think he fails to realize that Wikipedia reports facts, not opinions. Axem Titanium 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the author's admission of original research on his talk page, and his personal attacks against the users who tagged the article for deletion -- going so far as to say they were jealous of his writing skills (and gee that one HUGE paragraph of an article really shows great writing skills)! Wavy G
  • Delete per nomination - original research - Additionally the cited sources speak nothing of the article's content only it's context. - wtfunkymonkey 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, fails WP:OR --Steve (Slf67) talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO -- Librarianofages 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NEO / OR. Mishatx 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, theres 3 minutes I'll never get back again (per all above) :( Wikipediarules2221 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why wasn't this speedied?? Spawn Man 04:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Stukkk 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh yes, the Zelda age came right after the Jomon period if I recall. (How the heck is this related to Japan may I ask?) Thanks, Spawn Man 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverified original research. JIP | Talk 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original Research, etc. Spinach Dip 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like original research. Atlantis Hawk 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR, unencyclopaedic tone. BTLizard 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Percy Snoodle 10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure originial research. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 11:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - You can't fairly even call this screed research. Original blatant nonsense, maybe. We need a policy page called WP:WTF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elaragirl (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten 22:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Meadows (California)[edit]

Mark Meadows (California) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-noteable, unpublished works, lack of citations, likely created by subject Ellpwd 15:59, 9 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, W.marsh 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete — Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, and there's no verification of his claims to fame other than his own websites. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, anyone can sell anything on Amazon and not much notability despite taking some time to search things out. Missvain 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:VANITY may come into play. --Czj 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Kungming2. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly-sourced biography of a living person. I have proposed this be a speedy deletion criterion, because we cannot know if there is subtle mischief afoot. Sourced only from a work published by the subject, plus links to a self-promotion site, neither of which establish notability. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable, and likely an ad. Spinach Dip 08:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a promo article and does not seem to meet WP:Bio standards... however his ghits do give results but I doubt they are enough to declare his notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:48, 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 Deleted, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is non-negotiable. Please re-create this article if the G8 ever does materialize; until then, there isn't any confirmed information known about it, and thus it doesn't make sense to have an article yet. --Cyde Weys 04:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac G8[edit]

Pontiac G8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Whispering 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sorry dudes, this has got to stay. More info will be added as time goes on and there are plenty of rumors about this vehicle--Nytemunkey 05:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — No verification and 2009 is quite a long ways from now. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 00:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but source, for example: [1] Chicago Tribune? I'd say that's reliable. FrozenPurpleCube 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's speculation. Speculation, even speculation by a respectable columnist, is never reliable. — Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but make it a stub too? Missvain 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if possible merge to Pontiac. Tarret 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and merge into main Pontiac article. Encise 02:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
  • Comment Merging to the Pontiac article would be inappropriate, as it's likely that the further information about this vehicle will require a split-off anyway. Assuming it's found to be true. If it's found to be false, it should just be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup to make it a bit less "crystal ball"-y, if possible. Mishatx 03:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not possible. There is not a single reliable fact available about this alleged vehicle. There is not a single source that demonstrates that it even exists. There is just speculation. This is a textbook crystal ball article. — Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's possible; I did just so with the intro a short time ago to emphasize that this article is about speculation, not a specific vehicle. Have another look. We can get on to sourcing the other statements now that the intro is clean. Unfocused 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Documented crystal balling of other reliable sources is not the same as Wikipedia editors gazing into same. Unfocused 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding my comments, this "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." is from WP:NOT's section regarding crystal balls. Unfocused 05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. If I were king, I would not have articles like this much later in the design cycle, but that is not Wikipedia policy, and decisions here should implement policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it really important to have an article about a car that's not going to come out until 2009? Last I checked, it's not even 2007 yet. Spinach Dip 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with some reluctance. The text sounds awfully speculative ("may be" seems to be repeating itself a lot), but there are some sources in the references section which saves this from being original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After reading the sources provided, they look like speculation as well with very little foundation. With that in mind, I feel the references which support this article are too thin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Nowhere did this article say this was a concept model, so there's a good chance it will be produced. Atlantis Hawk 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nowhere did this article say it even exists. — Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's sourced. It does not really fail WP:NOT a crystal ball if it has verifiable, specific sources of repute, which it does. I'd clean up some of that weak speculative text though. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak keep, describes multiple non-trivial crystalballing from sources as close to reliable as auto-industry speculation can come. Barno 14:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "May ... might ... might ... may ..." -- this is just repeating rumours. There is not a single verifiable fact in the entire article, and the "references" provided, while apparently from reputable publications, still consist of speculation.
    This isn't rocket science. Delete it now, and recreate it when Pontiac actually announces the damn thing. — Haeleth Talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The verifiable fact is that reputable auto industry insiders are discussing and speculating about this potential new product. The article is about factual, verified speculation of experts about a product that is sure to be notable, if produced. There are no facts about the vehicle itself at this time, but the discussions regarding are factual, and given the sources, they are notable. Unfocused 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • week keep needs more sources but its a good article!!! Audiobooks 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This very speculative, with no facts from anywhere. -- Whpq 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speculative Delete--- words from the article:speculation ... possible ... might ... might ...may ... may ... also a rumor ... not confirmed.
  • Weak Delete The article itself is speculation, with the references cited as speculation, would consider a weak keep with cleanup and trusted-in-the-vehicle-community sources were added --Fittysix 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pontiac until GM actually confirms its existence. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 100% pure speculation -- and until it's officially announced, it will simply be updated with more and fresher speculation. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speculation," "might be," "may," "rumor" - crystal ballism. Let's just wait for 2008. Delete. Denni talk 20:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetenergy?) --SunStar Net 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources, such as the Chicago Tribune, are verifiable and the subject is no doubt notable. RFerreira 06:31, 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. Punkmorten 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Kansas Heavyweight Championship[edit]

NWA Kansas Heavyweight Championship (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable wrestling championship. The article is nothing more than a table form of http://www.nwawrestling.com/information/history/kansas/heavyweight.htm. Metros232 16:07, 9 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, W.marsh 00:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Dream[edit]

A Bad Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As the article itself says, none of this is verified, it's all rumours, and... well, it's just a terrible article written by somebody who doesn't understand Wikipedia. The Mekon 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete crystal-ball fancruft. "It is rumoured that this will be released..." Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band is obviously very notable, and the album was released monthes ago. However, the Wiki page for the album Under The Iron Sea is enough, IMHO, we don't need a page for the single. Missvain 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also, stab. •Elomis• 09:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nomination. Contains unverifiable speculation and nonsense. Richyard 16:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fancruft/speculation. --Differentgravy 18:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When of the external links are listed as "not available", you know it's fancruft. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You again??? I don't care. If you delete it I will make it again. Why? I was right with Nothing In My Way five months before its release and you lost trying to delete it. So why would I be wrong know? "crystal-ball fancruft" Crystal Ball is a song by Keane, another article I created. You know nothing about Keane. I've taken the wiki format from the edit page so... watch out for that April snow...--Fluence 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, I might be mistaken here, but recreating an article soon after deletion is grounds for speedy deletion, and if repeatedly done, might not be a good idea. --Dreaded Walrus 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry guys! I've trimmed out all extraneous information and now it is a concise and useful wikipedia page.
  • Delete as per nomination. Keep a small mention on the album's page or whatever, but this does not merit a page of its own. Mr. Scare 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a load of speculation. "I was right with Nothing In My Way five months before its release and you lost trying to delete it. So why would I be wrong know?" - uh, it's quite possible that you will eventually be proved to be right. And WHEN this is proved to be right, THEN is the time to create the article. Not now! Jenny Wong 15:29, 19 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. -- RHaworth 02:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malu Street Crew[edit]

Malu Street Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails notability. Also, while it may seem that the article has deteriorated due to vandalism, a look at the first version of it reveals that this is not the case. Note also that the sources are fake. (Gzkn 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The talk page has a lovely comment, and thats that! Missvain 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G1. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 01:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — Speedy delete - definitely "original research", and lack of sources. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. If there was such a thing as a "Crew Rank", then this bunch would probably place 1,098,666,523 out of a possible 1,098,666,524. Encise 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Encise[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Brighton Festival, if it is notable enough. Otherwise, just leave it deleted. --Cyde Weys 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Festival Fringe[edit]

Brighton Festival Fringe (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Functionally (though not, perhaps, legally) a subsidiary event to Brighton Festival, with very little info in the article. Neither are national organisations, and the referencing for the Fringe is limited to an external link to their own site (a primary source), so I'd suggest deleting this (and merging the info into the main Brighton Festival, which is notable) as per Wikipedia organisations guidelines. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 20:32, 9 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, trialsanderrors 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply comment – I wouldn't really worry about that, because the two Edinburgh festivals have a lot more distinctiveness from each other. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 11:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to Keep - as you say, fringe festivals are separate entities from the main festival. However, given the current article content a Merge is quite reasonable. Can be split again if more information comes to light and the section becomes unwieldy for Brighton Festival. --Canley 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brighton Festival. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:17, 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 Deleted, unverifiable, original research, fancruft, unencyclopedic, you name it. --Cyde Weys 04:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in The Simpsons[edit]

List of vehicles in The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Large, rambling, unreferenced list of individual cars drawn (sometimes in the background) into Simpsons episodes. These include individual jokes about real cars, fictional car gags, and selectable car models in Simpsons video games. Offers numerous uncited details about extremely minor vehicles in the series and spin-offs, none of which enable a reader to better understand the subject of The Simpsons. I don't see the use for such an article, which appears to be nothing more than cruft.

This is the article's second fourth nomination; the concerns expressed in the first deletion discussion seem to have been largely, if not completely, ignored.

Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Islay. Mytildebang 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe someone actually took the time to do this, hillarious. Waste of space, delete! Missvain 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Major hack and slash overhaul There is genuine encyclopedic information here, however there is also a lot of cruft. Someone needs to spend half an hour editing and refining the article. -- Librarianofages
  • Comment If I had to draw a line in the sand I would say vehicles that are either significantly featured in multiple episodes of "The Simpsons", or vehicles that affect the plot of one or episodes of "The Simpsons". I would not like to see vehicles that were created merely to fill up space for the Simpson's games. -- Librarianofages 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How would those examples be any less original research? -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty easily, just take a gander at any of the books/articles on the Simpsons. There's a fair section at my local bookstore. FrozenPurpleCube 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well yes, I'm sure your local bookshop has a great many books that are part of the Simpsons franchise. (e.g. this and this). But reading them and conducting some sort of critical analysis would still be inescapably orignal research. I severally doubt you can find reliable sources that conduct such any analysis of motor vehicles in a television cartoon franchise and that could form the backbone of anything even approaching encyclopaedic content. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per islay. •Elomis• 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of work went into this; it does need some cleanup (not to mention a link on the Simpsons main page to it, so people can find it), but I think it's worth an article. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & merge any relavent info to any Simpson games involving cars etc... - Who really cares about what vehicles there are??? Let's do shades of green used on orcs in the Lord of the Rings instead!!! Ahem.... Spawn Man 04:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significantly featured vehicles and cleanup per Librarianofages. Seems like a search-worthy topic. Wavy G 05:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant vehicles in the show are notable, any others can be cleaned out. Don't make nominations to AfD just because you're unwilling to do so. FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, this is at least the fourth nomination of this article, see the article's talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 05:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IslaySolomon. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean. --Psiphiorg 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary, unencyclopedic, trivial listcruft/fancruft. The Simpsons is a great

show, a television landmark but it doesn't need to have an article listing cars in it. What's next? List of houses in The Simpsons? --The Way 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think even if this article is deleted, the information must be added to The Simpsons' article that it will become so long, so we'd better keep this article.--Soroush ☺talk | ☼Contributions 12:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OMG I cannot believe this is borderline at the moment, guys, read WP:NOT about Wikipedia not being an indescriminate collection of information, were it not for the limitations of paper encyclopedias, would you expect to see this article in Britannica even after 1000 years? •Elomis• 09:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has had more than enough time to be cleaned up and cleaned out. IT hasn't been. It's still unencyclopedic and has too much OR for my taste. Any hard pertinent information can be merged into the main article about the Simpsons.--Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. I fail to see how any "clean up" of this article can make a list of the vehicles seen on The Simpsons encyclopedic. If the vehicles were somehow vitally important to the dynamic of the show, I might be convinced; but they're not, they're just the animated equivalent of props. Pure fancruft. JGardner 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's been nominated for deletion before, and kept because people said they'd clean it up. It hasn't been cleaned up. How much longer must this cruft be allowed to embarrass us and detract from Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia? How many more chances must we give people to clean this up before we are allowed to admit that that is never going to happen, that this is an unsalvageable mess, and that it's better to have an empty purse than a purse filled with rotten garbage? — Haeleth Talk 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clearly not notable subject. What is next, list of animal appliances in the flintstones? This is just not encyclopedia material. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if we clean it up it will still be a indiscriminate collection of information. Whispering 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I love the Simpsons - and I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article - but this really belongs in a Simpsons wiki. -Kubigula (ave) 18:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Kubigula is right. I'm usually on the inclusionist side of discussions, but this just goes over any sort of sensible line. Sorry. --Christofurio 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is original research, witrh no sourcing. -- Whpq 22:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list. --humblefool® 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a fan of the show I don't even find this article to be a point of special interest, in agreement with Kubigula, this content would certainly have a place in a Simpsons Wiki --Fittysix 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research & fancruft. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you serious? Next thing we know, we'll have List of shoes worn in The Simpsons.--WaltCip 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or List of Lists that are Lists of Various Lists that list things in the Simpsons --ElaragirlTalk|Count 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With rare exceptions, shoes don't matter on the Simpsons (though there was a case where Lisa got some dancing shoes that would, IMHO, qualify for a spot in an article about the subject). That's an exception though. However, I can think of at least seven episodes about vehicles in the Simpsons. (Homer's Snowplow, The Homer, Bart's racer, the Canyonero, the Monorail, the episode where the family goes to Italy, the RV...). That's not even getting into the importance of regular vehicles in the series. Sure, not every vehicle in the Simpsons deserves a place in this article, but many do. FrozenPurpleCube 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate cruft to the extreme. ¡Ay, caramba! Extraordinary Machine 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - boring, boring, boring listcruft. Moreschi 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extreme listcruft. 1ne 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth, Elaragirl and JGardner, among others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For any of the people concerned about this article containing indiscriminate information, well, what criteria would you suggest for inclusion on this list? (Not that I think a vehicle appearing in the Simpsons's is indiscriminate, but I'd like some sort of feedback) FrozenPurpleCube 03:13, 20 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 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Dara[edit]

Alicia Dara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable musician that doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. The article is also one big copyright violation of this band profile. Bobblehead 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Narrowly meets WP:MUSIC -- Librarianofages 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Yes...members of her albums band come from notable backgrounds. Clean up and neutrality/rewrite a must. Missvain 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely fails accepted notability guidelines, we need some method of merging stuff to myspace. •Elomis• 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to copyright concerns. MER-C 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Seems half notable, but isn't referenced & has copyright issues... Gulp! Spawn Man 05:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to copyright violations. If the bad is sufficiently notable, we can create a stub and work from there, but this info is certainly ripped. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She might be worthy of an entry due to band members, but editing a sentence or two in the existing article isn't enough to dodge the legal issues. I'd recommend leaving a short stub only, but adding a link to the Seattle article in the External Links section. I'd also like to see some of the movies and TV shows she's supposed to have worked on - "can be heard all over the Web" sounds like PR to me... Quack 688 10:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, just about hits notablilty guidelines (and she's quite hot). Amists talk • contribs 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without denying that she looks good, and even assuming she has talent, no basis is demonstrated for having an article at this time. The article has many phrases the same as [4] so there may be copyvio issues unless the Wikipedia article came first. The many unsupported claims: "fans all over the world," "sold well," "popular" do not provide even one independent attestation of notability. A websearch of several thousand publications disclosed no reviews in publications of general circulation. Google only has 590 hits. There are no verified (or even unverified) numbers of cd's sold or paid downloads. Anyone with a computer and a microphone can create 5 self-produced CD's. It is up to the creaters of an article to provide multiple independent reliable sources to show that the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a site for promoting new talent. Become famous, (I expect she well may) THEN you get an article. Edison 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Edison. This just reeks of self-promotion and WP:COI. --Aaron 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete If it is a copyvio, than why hasn't it been speedied already? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, unless some decent references turn up. Listed as working TV Soundtracks, but nothing in IMDB for her. Give it a bit (nix on the speedy). If it survives, needs a drastic rewrite to stop it sounding like a promo blurb. Drjon 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There needs to be references. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 00:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Weak delete Working with notable people doesn't necessarily make someone notable - otherwise we could unfortunately end up with every extra in Hollywood having an article. That these albums are self-released, and that she's still primarily an educator...I have to think that she's not notable. --TheOtherBob 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability to be found. If her bandmates are notable, they're only minimally so. If she was suddenly fronting, say, a re-formed The Smiths, that'd be a different story. Simões (talk/contribs) 08:51, 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. DS 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smackall[edit]

nn company Xudhcj 02:26, 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. DS 15:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LIG[edit]

nn company Xudhcj 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete non-notable and fails WP:Corp- Missvain 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Missvain. Dar-Ape 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Also, what's the whole "Competitors" section!? A PA too maybe... Spawn Man 05:24, 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 Delete. Srikeit 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZYB[edit]

ZYB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn company Xudhcj 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no evidence is provided to meet WP:CORP. Marginal speedy. MER-C 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. --MECU≈talk 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ta-ta Missvain 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy gonzales!!! - Why don't you go home... ;) Spawn Man 05:25, 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. DS 15:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Koretz[edit]

This article is a clear conflict of interest. Essentially a one-editor article, we get the bio straight from (and apparently only from) the horse's mouth, so it fails WP:AUTO and WP:RS. OK, seems to have done some impressive things, but have we seen it all before? I smell pork. Blue Tie is a startup which opened its doors in October 2006. David Koretz gets 176 unique Ghits; Blue Tie Inc gets 34 unique Ghits, many links to the company's website, directories and to wiki mirrors. The article was userfied in July by User:NMChico24, and it got put back by the author at the end of October. By putting his article here, he's merely following his own advice as published here. Delete: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Ohconfucius 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Soapbox article. And block user before we end up with another Brad Hines on our hands. Wavy G 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear conflict of interest. Nobody knows or cares about this guy. 129.98.212.167 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MECU≈talk 03:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and salt per Wavy G. --Dennisthe2 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom soapbox fest - Missvain 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow thats one narcissistic article. Definite conflict of interest. Wikipediarules2221 04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Koretz's mom realizes that he is different from other children when he spends his summer vacation writing a business plan..." Man if this guy's ego was any bigger, Wikipedia would explode... Spawn Man 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it may be wrong, but I'm in love with Koretz's mom. Wavy G
  • Delete — Definitely a vanity article, and definitely advertising, too. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one hits the trinity of non-notable, advertisement, and vanity. Spinach Dip 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam etc. And Mr K must be a real fun guy to be with... BTLizard 09:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:SPAM, WP:V, and WP:GETALIFE. If that had been my kid I sure'd have noticed, and doubled up on my contraceptive in the future. --Charlene 12:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "At 17 years old, he became the youngest person in history to receive venture capital. [citation needed]" Too right a citation's needed, that's a hell of a claim. Probably WP:COI, definately unverified/OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:44, 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. DS 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Data Safe Limited[edit]

nn company Xudhcj 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --MECU≈talk 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real assertion of notability. Marginal speedy. I've prodded an article on their only product, Enterprise Password Safe. MER-C 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom... Spawn Man 05:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - fits "db-spam" (advert) criteria.SkierRMH 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement and non-notable. Spinach Dip 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and looks like advertising. BTLizard 09:57, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koryeo Logistics[edit]

Koryeo Logistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn company Xudhcj 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Established in 2006 and it handles all of the S&R for Korea, wow. --MECU≈talk 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gosh these Koreans are busy... Spawn Man 05:35, 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 Delete (G1).--Húsönd 03:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otis_Lee_Gacey[edit]

Otis_Lee_Gacey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Total nonsense. Please note that this page's author, Rchdsmth, has been vandalizing Culpeper, Virginia for a while now. Other than that, this is his only contribution. H0n0r 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only nonsense. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, joke article, and if for no other reason, that poorly constructed acronym. Wavy G 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nonsense per G1 - Missvain 03:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nonsense --MECU≈talk 03:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! Put it in WP:BJAODN. Ha ha.
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Already tagged. MER-C 03:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalis[edit]

Fatalis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prod contested by article creator. This article provides information and tips about a video game character in Monster Hunter. It fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, being only very little more than a video game guide. It is a combination of material lifted verbatim from this website (and "used by permission" with no link or other reference), and what appears to be original research on the part of the article creator--there are no citations of independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, it fails WP:NOR. Lastly, the character of Fatalis is not notable except for serious users of Monster Hunter. A google search turned up very few references to this character and none outside of the context of game hint pages. It fails WP:NOTABILITY as fancruft. I would suggest merging with Monster Hunter but I think the treatment of the character of Fatalis in that article is adequate and that this material isn't suitable for inclusion in WP. Darkspots 02:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Taylor[edit]

David L. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How notable is someone whose job is to dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's, even if it is at Guantanamo Bay? This is not a political statement from me about the US record on Human rights there. I just don't get it. Delete Ohconfucius 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete super-non-notable. Missvain 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --MECU≈talk 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "he was responsible for assuring the detainees' dossiers were properly maintained", NN --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Oy, you! Private, I thought I told you to slap that detainee with your left hand, not your right! Gosh, I'm gonna quit this job one of these days..." NN - ;) Spawn Man 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable military pencil-pusher. Wavy G 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Deputy Director of Personnel isn't a very notable post. Have we seen his name in the papers lately? If he was Deputy Director of Personnel at Guantanamo, that's another story... Non-notable. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most non-notable article I've seen in a while. Probably vanity as well. Spinach Dip 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is vanity, since the editor writes a lot of articles about Guantanamo (and from his other entries may be in Alaska or the Yukon). I also think this article was created in good faith. However, I'm not convinced that this person is himself notable enough to merit inclusion in an international encyclopedia. There is nothing in the article that asserts his notability, especially since he is a living person who has not chosen to be in the public eye, and therefore his privacy concerns are of importance. --Charlene 12:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I have respect for this person's service, a biography doesn't seem to fit in WP. --Oakshade 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google hit pulls up five pages of infomation on David L Taylor... oh wait, this isn't the attorney? The Artist? The Ball Engineer? I guess Delete
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 06:30, 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 01:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kit: An American Girl in the Great Depression[edit]

Kit: An American Girl in the Great Depression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proposed deletion before which was removed by author. This is a non notable movie which does not yet even exist and can not hope to assert it's notability at least until it does. I can only imagine a non-existent movie could be notable and suitable for Wikipedia were it (for example) a highly anticipated sequel to a blockbuster movie, an awaited adaption of a notable book or musical etc. or perhaps had some reason why it would attract public attention (politically outrageous movie denying the holocaust, socially outrageous movie depicting child sexuality) As it stands this article fails WP:NOT in that Wikipedia is not a a crystal ball, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. •Elomis• 02:48, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Anderson[edit]

Bobby Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unremarkable person. Noteability not established even after another user requested it months ago. MECU≈talk 03:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Make a stub. The band Jack's Mannequin features Andrew McMahon who is on Maverick records. Bobby used to be in a band called River City High, who was fairly known within the punk/emo scene a few years back. Tommy Lee has played in Jack's Mannequin and so has Jacques from Phantom Planet. And think, I just learned all this by googling and wiki-ing :) Missvain 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Or merge to Jack's Mannequin and delete that for the same reason. WP:NOT a garage band fansite. •Elomis•
    • Comment. Considering that he was on the Tonight Show, I don't think the garage band comparison is apt. Sure, his notability is questionable, but it's certainly not non-existant. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many people have appeared on The Tonight Show accompanying famous musicians. Should they all have articles? Wavy G 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the controlling guideline here, boys and girls, is WP:MUSIC, and by that standard, Missvain's argument holds water (albeit barely). He's notable because he's in a new band formed by a notable (enough) musician. But I say "Weak", because the article on Jack's Mannequin is actually a redirect to Andrew McMahon, which suggests minimal notability for that band. Also desperately needs cites. -- Xtifr tälk 10:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he's not notable. The band formed by a notable musician is notable per WP:MUSIC, but other members of that band do not automatically require individual articles. — Haeleth Talk 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al, more vanity...Amists talk • contribs 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Merely being in a band with someone who may be notable does not automatically grant you notability too. Merely appearing on a TV show that wasn't about you doesn't grant notability either - I can truthfully claim to have appeared on This Is Your Life, but I'm certainly not a notable person... — Haeleth Talk 17:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, barely a claim of notability. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 17:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DeleteBalloonman 23:03, 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 delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluckers[edit]

Pluckers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Does not appear to meet any of the guidelines in WP:CORP Mishatx 03:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Yeehaw wings for no one!! Missvain 03:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do it for the children, the poor children! Why lord, why?! Spawn Man 05:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn restaurant which sounds like a bad SNL commercial. Wavy G 08:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad and non-notable. Spinach Dip 09:04, 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. DS 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan death[edit]

original research Angkonk 03:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fan death, how scary.... - Missvain 03:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipediarules2221 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely implausible original research. MER-C 04:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research and nonsensical. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jeez! Now I know how my cat died! Thanks for the info Dr. Kyung Goo Hai! Per nom... ;) Spawn Man 05:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup POV, cite sources properly, and include a section about how the myth is false. Mishatx 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be a real phenomenon, and not a recent one, based on the 1997 Straight Dope article at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a970912.html This is not an article about a scientific phenomenon, but rather about a widely-believed urban legend. The article is notoriginal research; it has two references which were formerly listed as external links, and several different editors have worked on it. Angkonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s only contributions so far have been three AfD nominations. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually this article is not a hoax, nor is it original research (click the links). This may be a speedy keep. Allon Fambrizzi 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Weak keep; not very well sourced, but Straight Dope reference [5] is at least enough to prove that such a phenomenon exists/is believed to exist. Laïka 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enough sources to appear plausible to me. hateless 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a noteworthy urban legend. I wonder what believers do if prescribed CPAP? Robert A.West (Talk) 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable urban legend, although source listed is a Korean website, which doesn't help, but no reason to delete. Wavy G 08:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fan death is scientifically rubbish, but that is no reason to delete the article, it is a notable myth. Martin 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. le petit vagabond 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A well-sourced, very well-known urban legend and a notable group hysteria phenomenon. --Charlene 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable urban legend, apparently. Could use more sources, though. Sandstein 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't original research when there are sources; it's as simple as that. Lovely urban legend, though; made me laugh! Fans chop up oxugen molecules... Elrith 13:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well cited article on notable theory prevelant in Korea.--Prosfilaes 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep Sadly the links in the article point to a lot of coverage. This desperately needs cleaned up thought. The beliefs section is completely unverified and the formatting of the existing references should be made consistent. South Korea's science teachers really need to be taking a long hard look at themselves though. "Windmills do not work that way!"-- IslaySolomon | talk 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still has too much OR. Not sure about those sources, either. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense. Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources to even show that it is widely believed, and does not make clear the judgement of doctors and scientists that a fan cannot somehow disintegrate the oxygen in a room. Edison 16:31, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProtectSeniors.Org[edit]

nn organizations Angkonk 03:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article's references demonstrate multiple independent non-trivial coverage by the press. The group deals with an issue of nationwide concern to pensioners and people approaching retirement age in the United States, employer-paid health insurance. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Truth Missvain 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, per truth --¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable organization (and a registered lobby) which has been written about in the AARP magazine as well as mentioned by numerous seniors' publications not mentioned in the article. Nominator is new and account has only been used to nominate articles for deletion; there's a possibility the nominator doesn't yet fully understand the Wikipedia meaning of notability. --Charlene 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has sources, a broad presence, its goof enough for me.-- danntm T C 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, account's only edits are three AFD noms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regrettably. These seniors organisations are typically flaccid attempts at lobbying for old timers' rights over the rest of society, however this one is notable, sourced and otherwise suitable. •Elomis• 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Killerhun00 00:30, 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Design Amano[edit]

Aqua Design Amano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn company Angkonk 03:58, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO, WP:AUTO and WP:VANITY all refer. (aeropagitica) 05:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haiiro[edit]

Haiiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biographical article that does not establish the importance of the subject Errick 04:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete non notable article that would probably be deleted if it had a speedy tag on it. Wikipediarules2221 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete wp:vanity - Missvain 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. "I created the subject so how would anyone know if all the points were or were not addressed?" Speaks for itself. VegaDark 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 04:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and salt, CSD A7 and violation of WP:AUTO. --Dennisthe2 05:31, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Crew[edit]

Boston Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non notable group/organization. Despite connections does not merit its own page Missvain 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they could, through the use of externally verifiable information taken from reliable third-party sources, prove the impact that this group of people had, then I would be inclined to keep. However a generic bunch of roadies and promoters is, in my opinion, as "worthy" (word used incredibly loosely) of an article as a generic group of scouts or electricians. Delete unless rewritten/expanded per above
  • I do agree with the above, if expand/rewritten happened, perhaps a keeper....hmmm Missvain 04:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritable per the above, for two reasons: semi-notable and good faith edit. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this stage of the game, there is no evidence of importance or notability provided within the article. My suggestion above is only relevant if such improtance or notability becomes evident through the use of externally verifiable, sourced info. -- saberwyn 11:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article fails to provide sources, and ther eis no way to verify this information. -- Whpq 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smacks of OR and I'd like to see some reliable sources for the claims in the article. I know google is evil but I couldn't see any reliable sources to verify this article for the first few pages anyway. --Spartaz 22:06, 20 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 close, use WP:IFD for images. -Amarkov blahedits 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SomeMotionBlurProblems.jpg[edit]

This picture was uploaded on en.wiki by mistake, and later correctly uploaded in commons. It is not referenced anywhere in en.wiki. My mistake. I think it might go for a very speedy deletion, but I'm not aware of the complexities of deletion in en.wiki (I hope I am doing more or less the right things). Moongateclimber 04:49, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Clendon[edit]

David Clendon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not noteable. Minor New Zealand figure in the Green Party, unsuccessful candidate for parliamentary and Green Party office. Randomkiwi 05:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom Missvain 05:07, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo space[edit]

Neo space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like fancruft to me. Not even Google brings up a lot of information about this, the main Yu-Gi-Oh! article doesn't cover it, no reliable sources are given, and it seems basically like a non-notable extremely minor element of the anime. Crystallina 05:04, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Kane[edit]

Rusty Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not noteable. Unsuccessful candidate in general and council elections. Randomkiwi 05:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Heading up a fringe party and placing last in elections is not notable. Also fails WP:V. Caknuck 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - per A7 - The worst part is the guy who built this page, also built our other New Zealander Green Party friends page. Missvain 05:29, 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. The expansion of the article since the AfD began only contains one additional claim to notability, and that is a trivial mention on TV news. Non-trivial independent coverage has not been shown, which is what would be required to negate the consensus for deletion here, and the presence of editors continuing to argue for deletion following expansion gives me no reason to think that those who argued for deletion before it have failed to revisit the article; and if they had, would have changed their minds. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiseguys: Comedy You Can't Refuse[edit]

The Wiseguys: Comedy You Can't Refuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable improv group. Google search on "The Wiseguys: Comedy You Can't Refuse" nets only 10 unique hits on 17 returns, removing Wikipedia related entries leaves only three. Wider search on ["The Wiseguys" improv Memphis] widens a bit, with 133unique/883 total. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). Delete MikeWazowski 05:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Article creator Lawcomic appears to be the founder of this group. Definitely violates self-promotion and autobiography guidelines. MikeWazowski 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails comedy guidelines. The award they won doesn't seem sufficiently notable to include them. --Brad Beattie (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable group, and the award doesn't seem to change my opinion, per Brad Beattie. Looks like a potential WP:COI page as well. Insert your own joke about "article you can refuse" here. --Kinu t/c 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unholy trinity. (Advertisement, Non-notable, Vanity) Spinach Dip 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deletion you can't refuse as per above. MER-C 09:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such a specific award in a local comic talent show isn't enough. We need some verification of their notability from reliable sources. Based on the nom's ghits I can't see that happening. Likely WP:COI and, as we all know, Wikipedia is not an advertising service. -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Conflict of interest, no reliable sources, unverified.
    • Keep: The above problems I cited in an earlier post has been resolved and this article has been expanded to be worthy of keeping. And where did my old sig go? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Do Not Delete


This is my argument for not deleting The WiseGuys Wikipedia article

The WiseGuys meet the Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) in the following ways:

1) There are multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person/group/show and its creators/producers, such as articles in The Commercial Appeal and the Memphis Flyer. They have also performed on local television news/entertainment programs.

Comment - Google search on Commercial Appeal website on the terms ("Commercial Appeal" Wiseguys improv) brings up only two listings for performances, not articles. Similar results on site search for Memphis Flyer. No evidence of multiple non-trivial published works here. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See argument placed by Lawcomic below.Apatronoftruth 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) One of the troupe members, Larry Clark, is a world-renowned clown and magician. He was most recently seen on television's "America's Got Talent" which was seen worldwide. Larry Clark has also toured with Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus, Cirque Du Soliel, Cirque Magnifique, Jim Rose Circus Sideshow Jim Rose Circus Sideshow, all of which are internationally touring shows.

Comment - All fine and good, but this article is not about Larry Clark, but the Wiseguys as a whole. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - The guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) clearly states:
A comedian, group, or theatrical show is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
3. Contains at least one comedian who was once a part of or later joined a group or show that is otherwise notable.
Unless you are saying that clowning is not a form of comedy, this meets Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). Apatronoftruth 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Though it was it's first year, the SouthEastern Comedy Arts Festival was a "major comedy show" in that there were troupes from four different states in attendance.

Comment - Google search on "Southeastern Comedy Arts Festival" brings back only 79 hits, 35 unique. Very low returns for a "major comedy show" - also hard to classify something that was held for the first time this year as major. Given that the festival was apparently held in Starksville, MS, near where three states come together, I also don't find the "four states" qualifier to be much of a help. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) The award, "best shortform improv troupe", won at the above mentioned festival, was accomplished by beating seven of the best and brightest improv companies in the southeast region.

Comment - And apparently we must take your word for this, as I can find no documentation or citations on how "bright" the other contestants were. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) In January 2004, The WiseGuys performed onstage with The English Lovers, an improv troupe from Vienna, Austria.

Comment - This is relevant how? Google search on ("The English Lovers" improv) brings back only 9 unique hits on 29 returns, which is nearly as bad as the initial returns on "The Wiseguys". I would consider them to be non-notable as well. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of only three improvisational theater companies in Memphis, Tn, The WiseGuys have been a major feature in the growing comedy community. They are a feature at the new Comedy, TN Comedy Club and perform out of the city as well.

Comment - "Major feature" is a subjective term, and does not appear to be borne out by the available information. I'm sure it's an important group to you (since you appear to be connected to them), but it's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not an advertising platform for you. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - The guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) clearly states:
A comedian, group, or theatrical show is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
4. Has become a prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
Therefore, this meets Wikipedia:Notability (comedy). Apatronoftruth 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And what independent third-party verification do you offer that the Wiseguys are a prominent representative of the local scene? Right now, we only have your word for this. MikeWazowski 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Response" - In every article that can be found about improv in Memphis, it states that The WiseGuys is only one of either two or three shows of its kind in Memphis. As one of three companies of its kind in the local scene that perform the notable style (i.e. short form improv), The WiseGuys meet the above mentioned Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) requirement.

They are "prominent", as is easily verified by looking at the number of shows they perform.

Also, please remember, from the guidelines:

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Apatronoftruth 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what is stated above, The Wiseguys have been profiled in "The Commercial Appeal", Memphis's daily newspaper. A link to the article is listed on the Wikipedia page. --Lawcomic 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - The link to the page goes to the Wiseguys website. Google search (linked above) of the Commercial Appeal website finds no trace of said article. MikeWazowski 15:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, the article is clearly from The Commercial Appeal. The paper's archive does not include all articles. A simple review of the article hosted on The Wiseguys site shows it is an actual newspaper article, including a byline from Lawrence Buser, whose work can be found on numerous articles in the Appeal.--Lawcomic 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most paper's web archives do tend to keep all articles these days, especially one as recent as 2003. Regardless, it's one article - hardly multiple non-trivial published works, which is the more relevant point here. MikeWazowski 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, throughout this discussion there have been two Commercial Appeal articles mentioned. While I can no longer find them on the CA archives, they are either reprinted or mentioned: Here Commercial Appeal article on Joey Hack and here Reference to a Commercial Appeal article on MCIA, Wiseguys and Freakengine and the troupe is mentioned in the Starkville Daily News Article on SECAF. In addition, the troupe has appeared on television and radio in Memphis.--Lawcomic 16:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Citation - Here is a blurb from the May 18, 2005 issue of The Memphis Flyer recommending the Wiseguys' scheduled performance that night http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A3527. It is not a feature article, simply an example of The Wiseguys' shows being acknowleged and recommended by a newspaper dedicated to the Memphis entertainment scene.


Furthermore, the Southeastern Comedy Arts Alliance Festival is not a "local talent show". It was a festival of improvisational groups from across the Southeast region. --Lawcomic 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep The above is good enough for me. •Elomis• 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep
The Wiseguys is a working improvisational comedy troupe in Memphis Tennessee. The cast currently consists of nine performers. They entertain audiences at regular performances at real venues such as The Full Moon Club and Comedy, TN (http://www.comedytennessee.com). On Dec. 8-9 the Wiseguys will be the headline act at The South Street Comedy Club in Jackson, TN (http://www.baudos.com/SouthSt.html).
This group exists, has performed in the Mid-South for years, continues to expand into new venues and is available for booking right now (http://www.wiseguysimprov.com/.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Brenner (talk • contribs) 21:42, November 15, 2006. Also this user's only contributions to date are to this AfD. MikeWazowski 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Fast the article as it stands needs to be deleted. It makes no claim to notability. But if the stuff above is added to make a claim to notability, then I'll support as a Strong Keep.Balloonman 23:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Article has been improved significantly since nominated. I'm inclined to keep articles where people are willing to work on them. Two comments on the article, watch out for peacock terms---eg things that look good by have no real meaning, EG the comment about the group having a long run. Also, the members of the group should be pared down. It looks as if there might be two people who are notable. The rest should be deleted or (at most) listed side by side because most groups are subject to change, which means that you should state, "as of November 2006 the group consisted of..."Balloonman 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only reference is an award for wining the Best One-Liner which was Nothing dirty touches my car, unless it’s a girl. & Best Shortform Improv Troupe(best of that festival mind you). Also the title is right off a poster, Comedy You Can't refuse, blatent advertising. I say delete it, if proper references can be provided then I may support the recreation, but this is no start. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the new and improved entry and comment on what, if anything else, can be done differently to ensure acceptance in Wikipedia. For example, is there a way to change the name of the article to get rid of the "comedy you can't refuse" tagline?

Again, thank you for your consideration.Apatronoftruth 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP: Every improv comedy festival hands out awards, and each of those awards goes to the "best of that festival". Go figure. The point is, the SouthEastern Comedy Arts Festival was held in October, 2006 on the campus of Mississippi State University and The Wiseguys were named Best Short-Form Improv Troupe (http://www.secaa.org/wordpress/). The event was reported on in the Starkville (MS) Daily News (http://www.starkvilledailynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=660&Itemid=128). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E.S. Roberts (talk • contribs) November 16, 2006 16:45 (UTC). - User's only five contributions to date appear to be on pages connected to The WiseGuys.MikeWazowski 16:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which, of course, is irrelavent and does not nullify the cited newspaper article covering the event and the Wiseguys' participation in it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.154.235.53 (talk • contribs) .User's recent edits to The Wiseguys article have been primarily vandalism. MikeWazowski 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the group's only legitimate claim to notability that I see is the presence of Larry Clark. It's difficult to gauge just how notable Clark is, however. Wikipedia does not have an article for Larry Clark (clown), and it's difficult to use Google as a gauge of his notability because there is another very famous Larry Clark - the director of Kids. Clark has certainly toured with some impressive circuses, but I'm unclear about the magnitude of his contribution to those circuses. By analogy, I'd argue that not every backup dancer who tours with a major star necessarily absorbs the notability of that star. --Hyperbole 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - As far as your analogy is concerned, it is Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) that sets up the guideline to which you are objecting. I am just trying to make the entry conform to Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) requirements. Nothing in Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) states that the person "who was once a part of or later joined a group or show that is otherwise notable" needs to have a large "magnitude of his contribution". If that is your only objection to the entry, does this argument change your mind?Apatronoftruth 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Hyperbole mentioned, LOTS of people have toured with Ringling Bros. and the other shows - that doesn't make them inherently notable, especially since we have no way of knowing how long they toured, what kind of status, if any, they had in those groups, the reasons for their departure, etc. As to Clark's appearance on America's Got Talent, it does appear that he was on the show, but based on several accounts [7] [8] [9] [10], it seems he did very poorly and only appeared once. MikeWazowski 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Not to split hairs, but the requirement, according to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) is not that the person joining the group be a main feature in a nationally touring show or that he be particualarly good (in fact, is it not possible to be notable for being bad at what you do?), just that he "was once a part of or later joined a group or show that is otherwise notable". I still contend that, according to the wording of Wikipedia:Notability (comedy), this entry meets the requirements set for notablity.Apatronoftruth 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response - How on earth are subjective reviews of Larry Clark's performance relevant to this discussion? You appear to be taking uncalled for potshots on this particular point. --Lawcomic 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Users Apatronoftruth, David Brenner, E.S. Roberts, Molliekoalie and the following IP addresses (147.154.235.51, 147.154.235.52, 147.154.235.53) appear to be making only edits to the Wiseguys page and this discussion. Seems like strong case for Astroturfing and WP:SOCK. 74.226.112.101 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - An odd comment to be made by someone using only their IP address. If you are accusing me of using sock puppets, I would ask that whoever is in charge check my IP addresses to verify I am seperate and apart from the others.--Lawcomic 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for me. Check the IPs. Apatronoftruth 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else?[edit]

So, activity seems to have quieted down on the debate over this entry's fate. It seems the opinions are pretty well evenly matched. I will say that after the revamped edit of the entry, it seems two people changed their minds to support keeping the entry. And since the person who nominated the entry for deletion has made edits to the entry to help it comply with standards, I can only assume he supports keeping it as well.

Anyone care to tell me what happens now? Apatronoftruth 05:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be closed within the next 24 hours or so by an admin. --W.marsh 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES: I think it should also be noted that Wiseguys founder, Joe Leibovich, hosted an episode of the very notable TV show "America, Apparently, Never Reads a Book". This episode featured the hilarious reactions of St. Louis Zoo patrons watching desert tortoises mate as well as the surprised responses of people using a drinking fountain that dispensed root beer.

  • Delete per nomination. Even with article cleanup, group lacks notability. Most the media mentions seem trivial, in that they mention the Wiseguys along with other groups - the group is not the focus of the articles. As to the comment above about the "very notable TV show" America, Apparently, Never Reads a Book, a Google search on that terms brings up zero hits. Notable, right. TheRealFennShysa 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as previous + comment: There is no consensus, so I'd ask an admin to have this closed out and labeled "NO CONSENSUS, DEFAULTING TO KEEP". In the future, it can be revisited but some who agreed it should be deleted never cared to revisit the article after it was expanded upon - so we have biased votes within this tabulation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 20 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 Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh. (aeropagitica) 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Software[edit]

Vision Software (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Fails WP:CORP, definitely not the most notable of the "Vision Software"s out there according to Google. Contested prod. MER-C 10:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick Delete, per nom. Looks like a poorly craged advert. SkierRMH 07:39, 11 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, VegaDark 05:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7 - Missvain 05:33, 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Campbell Smith[edit]

Kristin Campbell Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not Noteable. Official in a minor party, failed candidate Randomkiwi 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I removed a load of cruft to make the article less gushing. Weak delete because I don't really know how notable this party is as her notability depends on how popular the party is. --Spartaz 22:14, 20 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 John Van Buren. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John van Buren[edit]

John van Buren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not noteable. Unsuccessful candidate from a small party. Potentially confusing with John Van Buren Randomkiwi 05:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete current content on a non-notable political no-name, and Redirect article to John Van Buren. Wavy G 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. MER-C 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Brian | (Talk) 05:18, 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. Majorly (Talk) 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Memphis Comedy & Improv Alliance[edit]

The Memphis Comedy & Improv Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable group. Google search on "Memphis Comedy & Improv Alliance" nets only 31 unique hits on 62 returns. Fails Wikipedia:Notability, in that there is a lack of significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject. Delete MikeWazowski 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Article creator Lawcomic appears to be one of the founders of this group. Definitely violates self-promotion and autobiography guidelines. MikeWazowski 05:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As long as they don't get together & start the ol' "Memphis Comedy & Imrpov Alliance unite!!!", I think we'll be okay in deleting it... ;) Spawn Man 06:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This group has been written up in "The Commercial Appeal", Memphis' newspaper. Links on the MCIA web site show that membership includes local and national comedy clubs and several groups. The calendar published by the MCIA is of value to individuals seeking information on comedy in the Mid-South. Finally, the MCIA is not "self promoting". It is a resource for multiple groups.

Thank you for your consideration. --Lawcomic 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Comedycruft, written up in one newspaper, covers a bunch of NN comedy groups. Vanicruftspamtisement? I can't remember the exact term. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted as spam for a non-notable software product from a non-notable company, {{db-spam}}, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:CORP all refer. (aeropagitica) 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyCleaner[edit]

EasyCleaner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable product. Previous prod was declined, so moving to AfD. Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE or WP:CORP. --Elonka 05:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertisement for a non-notable product. JIP | Talk 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Advertising, non-notable product. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - the creator, Citizen420 (talk · contribs), has only edited the article in question and adding it to a list. That was three months ago. It's pretty obvious that this is a corporate spa. So tagged. MER-C 10:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G11 (blatant advertising) or just Delete. Really badly written spam by this "one man company", but obviously spam nonetheless. Wikipedia does not exist to help promote your obscure products! Xtifr tälk 10:15, 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 keep. Majorly (Talk) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aphrica[edit]

Aphrica (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Unreleased album. Delete as not notable. Ohconfucius 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 10:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a released album (later withdrawn) by artists with articles of their own on Wikipedia. Nuttah68 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge; per nom, also nn album that is already noted on page... suggest redirect to Klaus Schulze SkierRMH 07:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album by two notable artists. ~ trialsanderrors 04:03, 15 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, VegaDark 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, produced album by notable artists with unique circumstances. --Dhartung | Talk 10:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Aphrica album is widely considered a blip in Klaus Schulze's otherwise extremely prolific and acclaimed career. Schulze himself has no love for this album, neither has his manager Klaus Dieter Mueller, and both men fell out with Ernst Fuchs over its creation. As a painter Fuchs is great - much of his work is quite something, but this musical collaboration was ill-advised. Nevertheless the album was made and released (and I have a copy, though I admit it's not Schulze's best work), only to be withdrawn a while later. It has never been made available on CD and never will be. But I don't think mention of it should be simply left out of (or removed from) Wikipedia, or limited to just a name in the discography in the main Klaus Schulze article. It is part of Schulze's history; the album itself has a history, and some people may be curious about that history - what is this strange album they've seen listed but never been able to find? Therefore, out of respect for completeness if nothing else, I feel it should be kept. (Tonythepixel, 16 Nov 2006)
    • Supposedly there is a Korean CD released in 2001. ~ trialsanderrors 20:46, 20 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 Closed - Phil Sandifer has already put in place an alternative solution and there is no consensus for anything else. Yomanganitalk 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Sheridan[edit]

Fictional character from the Babylon 5 universe who never actually appears on the show - only in a few spin-off novels. Phil Sandifer 06:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract this nomination in favor of the solution I just put into place on the article, whereby the original text is moved to The Babylon Project, and the Wikipedia article reflects primarily out-of-universe information, but has a link similar to sister project boxes at the bottom linking to the in-universe article. Phil Sandifer 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a very nice solution you've come up with, Phil. Unfocused 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Babylon 5 wikia or delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was a lead character in a novel, and mentioned in other novels and TV episodes in the series. With all due respect, I've seen a lot of less deserving characters from other series with similar wikis on this site. I'd support a transwiki if the B5 wikia was the primary source of information, but looking at the number and size of articles on that site versus this, it's clear which one is the de facto primary source. OTOH, a combined page on this wiki for minor characters like Firefly or Discworld have might also do the trick - all that's left to argue then is how much of a part a character has to play in a work of fiction before they earn their own wiki page. (Major part in one novel/episode? Background part in three? Is there a rule for that somewhere here I've missed?) Quack 688 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a character who appeared in the novels, despite not appearing in the TV show, is still notable. Wavy G 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a standard that has, to my knowledge, proven to be accepted as a notability standard. He certainly isn't a major character in B5 at large, and though he's a major character in a B5 novel - one we don't have an article on in the first place. (We admittedly did, but I just had to nuke it because the article was just the text from the back of the book.) WP:FICTION indicates pretty straightforwardly that character articles shouldn't get spun off the main article until it's too long, and minor characters should be put in a "list of minor characters" article. Phil Sandifer 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I don't know anything about Babylon5, but I know there are a lot of Star Wars characters from the novels who have their own articles, and who in my opinion would be considered very minor, because I've only ever seen the movies. But if it isn't notable enough, I'd say merge it to a list of B5 characters, if one such exists. Wavy G 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of minor B5 characters. --Masamage 17:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Book characters are just as notable as television character in some cases. - I'd consider changing to merge if I see the end result prior. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, transwiki per Andrew Lenahan, or merge into a minor-character list per Masamage; any of those options would comply with WP:FICT, but I'm not convinced keeping a separate article would. The transwiki option (accompanied by a summary merge into a minor-character list) would perhaps be best, as it would ensure that none of the article creators' hard work would actually be destroyed - it would merely be moved to a more appropriate venue. — Haeleth Talk 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to a list of minor characters. --Fang Aili talk 18:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get tired of people citing over and over again other existing unencyclopedic material as support for their unencyclopedic material existing. Delete it, and we'll get to the other stuff in due course and delete that too. •Elomis• 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clear by the article that nobody is going to mistake this for anything but what it is; description of a fictional person. It's also clear that a lot of people have read this fiction, almost certainly more than have listened to a CD that has sold 5000 copies. No objection to a full content paste merger, if someone hates this being a separate article that much. Unfocused 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keepBalloonman 23:13, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable group {{db-group}} and WP:BIO both refer. (aeropagitica) 16:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Student Society Manchester[edit]

Thai Student Society Manchester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obviously, this society does exist; however, reliable sources don't seem to indicate that this group is notable outside the scope of the university/community. If anything, a link to the society's homepage should exist at Thai Student Association (just like all the other ones), but an individual page doesn't seem appropriate for a club which doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Delete. --Kinu t/c 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Thai Student Association per nominationSpeedy delete per nom. Also, the contact section clearly indicates that this was setup by the group themselves. MartinDK 06:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this page is allowed to be kept, every non-notable student association will jump on the bandwagon and create their own page. le petit vagabond 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability given here. --SunStar Net 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I agree. So tagged. MER-C 11:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les King[edit]

Les King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsubstantiated nonsense Shoehorn 06:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no information on this person. I suspect it is a parody biography of either of two living persons by that name who have been interviewed in the British press. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — "Pastafarian?" I think this is someone's idea of a really bad joke. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 08:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- while I hate to side with someone so utterly foolish and blasphemous as to deny the greatness of Pastafarianism and His Noodly Goodness, I have to agree that there's no evidence of the notability of this Les King fellow. In fact, I would say that the evidence for the FSM (all praise his noodly appendages) is far stronger that the evidence for the existence of this person. Google turns up a few hits for "Les and Friends", but they're either mirrors of this article, or references to Les Claypool. -- Xtifr tälk 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. This will be a sad day, I used to watch "Rainbow" all day as a small child growing up... ;) Spawn Man 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like someone's idea of a joke--Captdoc 22:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom †he Bread 00:22, 19 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 - nobody is contesting it, perhaps {{prod}} would have done. Yomanganitalk 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codename-Revolution.com[edit]

non notable website Jopxdde 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sadly. Quality article, but about a NN subject which fails WP:WEB. --Czj 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - alexa ~ 3 million [11]. MER-C 10:27, 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 Speedily deleted as {{db-nocontext}}; the article is unsourced and doesn't discuss the nature of its subject. (aeropagitica) 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entity oriented programming[edit]

Entity oriented programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to fail WP:OR and WP:NEO. Google really has nothing on this, other than some guy's coding business. See the talk page as well. --Czj 07:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not a recognized concept in programming. Neologism and original research, indeed. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as or. I have never heard of this term. meshach 08:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It is a partial copy of the only source. MartinDK 11:46, 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 redirect to Category:Musical terminology. Shouldn't have needed to come to AFD, really. Proto::type 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular music terms[edit]

List of popular music terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List is redundant with Category:Musical terminology. No value added as a list. I will check that all entries are properly categorized. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the category list (after all entries from here which are missing from the category list are added.) Quack 688 10:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Adams (actor)[edit]

Eddie Adams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject is an actor who does not meet WP:BIO. Was deprodded by Unfocused with the rationale of "6 entries in IMDB is enough to warrant a short article." 4 of those roles were bit roles in movies, one was in a straight-to-video release, and the last was in a single episode of Firefly. hateless 07:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article does not assert notability. --Charlene 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the "notable actors" criteria of WP:BIO, nor has Mr. Adams been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources. -- Satori Son 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons. I c e d K o l a (Contributions) 23:48, 19 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 CSD G7. Kimchi.sg 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films: U-V[edit]

List of films: U-V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This list was replaced by List of films: U-V-W and will not be further updated or used. Please delete it to avoid any confusion. Hoverfish 07:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Would this fall under WP:CSD G6? Mitaphane talk 08:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of films: U-V-W. It is possible that some people have bookmarked this page during the week that it was up, and it is best not confuse readers by suddenly removing the page without some redirect in place. Redirects are cheap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per Sjakkalle. -- Kicking222 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion G6. (An editor who has merely tagged an article shouldn't IMO count). Robert A.West (Talk) 14:45, 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. Dakota 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

App-O-Rama[edit]

App-O-Rama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be a promotional article. It's been repeatedly speedied, prodded, deleted, undeleted[12], had a merge to Fatwallet proposed and rejected, had promises of expansion, had spam links removed, but still doesn't pass WP:CORP. Proceeding to AfD to settle the matter. --Elonka 08:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if it isn't promotional, it still fails WP:NEO. "[...] is a term that refers to a strategy of completing multiple applications in a relatively short period of time." --Czj 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, neologistic spewage, borders on WP:BOLLOCKS, I don't think any amount of extra time is going to be able to save this steaming pile. Only evidence of anything resembling notability is also evidence of it's blatantly spammy nature (in other words, remove the spam link and the whole thing falls apart). Xtifr tälk 11:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not appear promotional, it describes a term that seems fairly popular, at least according to google. However, still fails WP:NEO, because of these reasons: The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate. The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Tractorkingsfan 12:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me revise what I just said. There are certainly elements of advertising and how-to here, but one could make the argument that these are removable and the article could then stand on the notability of the term. I just wanted to dispel even that notion, so we cover all the bases. Tractorkingsfan
  • KEEP Hello. I performed several edits on this article as I am familiar with the term. It is a popular financial term but many people do not understand it, thus the need for an accurate and informative wiki. Its a term used to describe a series of applications. It has no relation to any particular company. It seems the wiki was greatly improved from its first incarnation to my last edit. Most of the previous problems were addressed...it had several links and sources added, spam was removed, it was categorized and wikified, etc. So it was developing into a good wiki. Unfortunately, it appears some people began to dismantle the wiki, removing categories, spamming fatwallet, etc. It is no more and no less a neologism than the wiki on stoozing (the term for 0% credit card investing in the UK) which has an active wiki. In fact, Stoozing wiki is a clear "how to" guide...this wiki, at the time of my last edit, is not. Perhaps all references to the fatwallet website should be removed. But there is a lot of interest in this term and if not proper for wikipedia, maybe should be moved to wikipedia dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.154.187 (talk • contribs) 08:09, November 17, 2006


  • Keep In the guide to deletion, Neologism means that the user considers this article to be about a word or phrase that is not well-established enough to merit a Wikipedia article. May be either a literal neologism (a very new word) or a protologism (a word coined in a small community but not used outside it). This term is used outside the community of the fatwallet website , examples:here and here and here. Thus it is not protologism. It shows a documented history of use for well over two years in the public domain, and is therefore not a neologism. It is not about a company or an online discussion forum, though its use can be found in those places. Granted it certainly needs more work, but does not merit deletion.

fwfinance (UTC)

  • Delete I'd like to see some sources for this otherwise this is Original Research. Spartaz 22:19, 20 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 23:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LastOCP[edit]

LastOCP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Non notable website + forum, fails WP:WEB. LastOCP gives 36 distinct Google hits[13]. Unknown number of members. Article is badly written as well (reads more like an attack page), but thta of course can be solved. Fram 08:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - alexa ~ 900k: [14], should be higher for a site that "[h]as become infamous around the internet". MER-C 11:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, poorly written article Redflagflying 06:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Horribly fails WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails assorted things as mentioned above. Wickethewok 16:20, 20 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 - it appears that merging/redirecting would be the best idea, but no firm target has been identified. A discussion on the talk page would be a good way to go. Yomanganitalk 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Alone Complex[edit]

The article contains mostly original research, and was tagged with the {{OR}} tag for a while, and received no references or notable improvement. Most of the information was contained on other Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex articles anyways. The concept is not a large enough topic that it needs to be split from the main articles, and even if it did (which would be fine) it shouldn't contain original research. With this in mind the article was turned into a redirect. Recently, some other editors have been restoring the article, saying we should have it, but without addressing the OR issues. Considering the concept can easily be represented on the main anime articles (WP:FICT), and that no one seems willing to improve this article (WP:WAF), I think we should delete the article. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not entirely convinced that there's nothing to save here. It seems to me that the article is trying to present the phenomenon as a real world phenomenon that just happens to be illustrated in fiction. If the cited references can back up the claim, (and I haven't yet read the cited references yet,) then WP:WAF,(and for that matter WP:OR) would not apply. I'm gonna print these upfor some light reading tonight. --RoninBKETC 11:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, after some not so light reading, and a mild headache, no one but the author attributes this concept as a "stand alone complex" I withdraw my objection, Delete --RoninBKETC 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The author of the article or of GitS? GitS originated the name (AFAIK), but the point of this article is to describe the concept in the context of the series. Jonathan 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The concept is real, but the name is fictional. A "stand alone complex" is nothing but a meme in many ways. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 14:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stand Alone Complexes aren't memes; memes originate somewhere, while SACs don't. That's the point. Jonathan 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect a small portion of it to the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex article. ColourBurst 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why there, and not, say, the article for the second season? (This is one of the main problems I have with suggestions to merge the article into something else: it's big enough to deserve its own concept and general enough to not fit properly as a section in any other article.) Jonathan 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the series. Nothing worth saving here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Guiguii 20:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The general style is tyoical of a WP:OR essay, and it's unclear whether the cited references address this concept as such. Sandstein 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel that this has become more of a philosophical concept rather than only based on the show's material. As such I have brought the topic before several of my Philosophy professors attention and have written a 20 page essay describing the theory and possible applications. I know my comment doesn't have much weight to it, but, I thought I might chime in. MrMacMan
    • Comment Get your paper published, (and not on a personal web page,) and then it would have more weight. --RoninBKETC 08:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to wikipedia namespace if it's not encyclopedic enough. Some things about wikipedia closely resemble SACs, so if only for that reason, it might be nice to have an essay on the subject. Things that can be seen as SACs might be the original MEDCAB or "The wikipedia cabal".
Kim Bruning 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is crucially important to GitS:SAC, and certainly more important than some concepts in other articles. The content wouldn't flow correctly if inserted into any other article. Most of the points in the article are supported by sources. I've read WP:NOR, and I'm unconvinced (shall we say) that most of content in this page is original research. Jonathan 06:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no comment on the fate of this page, but if it is deleted, redirect to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. -- saberwyn 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Topic is something new ( except perhaps in Japan )( related to Game theory too ) not yet well documented but the page was under improvement phase.--Neuromancien 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 November 2006 (Talk) 4 November 2006 (→Director view - minor cor.) 4 November 2006 (→Notes and references - correction and links to browse japanese page) 3 November 2006 (→Notes and references - Last Masahiro Footage 3 November 2006 (add notes and references + corrections + Masachi OSAWA) 3 November 2006 (→External links - some references) 3 November 2006 (→Director view & quotes) 3 November 2006 (add quotes from Director Kenji Kamiyama)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Connection[edit]

Carolina Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a half hour student radio broadcast from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Although it has apparently won some awards, it is still a non-notable student grouping per WP:ORG, under which I believe we have precedence to delete this article. This is the sister article to Carolina Week, which I have tagged speedy per G11 (Spam) and G12 (copyvio). The two outfits share a common origin and a common website. Wiki is not for school projects. Ohconfucius 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:AUTO. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as first-person spam. So tagged. MER-C 10:31, 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 Speedily deleted by Jni. (aeropagitica) 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Ahmed (Artist, writer, National College of Arts)[edit]

Zahid Ahmed (Artist, writer, National College of Arts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Self-promoting autobiography. -- RHaworth 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete CSDA7. I see you already tried. IMHO, there's no reason not to revert the anon IP's deletion of the speedy tag (he didn't even try using "hangon"). yandman 08:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 10:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Evans[edit]

Russell Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I considered submitting this to AfD previously, but rethought about it and wanted to wait to see if he'd get elected, as being elected might confer notability. He was not -- and was crushed in the general election (5099 to 1090) -- see [15]. Nothing else indicates notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also contains personal information that shouldn't posted here which I have removed. MER-C 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shunpiker 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- ßottesiηi (talk) 20:14, 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 Keep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PowerFolder[edit]

PowerFolder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not appear notable. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It does not read like an advert Rearden9 14:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it notable? --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say it's notable. It is listed on all the major download sites, plus gets some minor reportage: [16], [17] QuiteUnusual 21:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being listed doen't make you notable. I'd be expecting some reviews in relevent magazines to make this anything other than a advert. Spartaz 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There were reviews in two big german pc magazines: PC Pr@xis (November 2005) and in Chip (Februrary 2006). The program was also on the cover CD/DVD in both cases.
  • Keep. should be edited to be less like an advert Plastic rat 11:24, 21 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 Cathedral Quartet, as can be done with all the other one-line biographies (I've seen a few that are more elaborate). ~ trialsanderrors 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lee[edit]

Steve Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability factor. Do not see the notoriety of this subject warranting a Wikipedia article. T. White 09:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the main Cathedral Quartet article. Incidentally, the quartet article lists a large number of members with pages similar to this one, which only contain a three-line bio at best (one-line at worst). Recommend they all get merged into the main article, unless they have some noteworthy life experiences outside the quartet. Quack 688 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Quack 688. As a proposed deletion, it was not needed to bring to AFD unless contested. Merge & redirect is covered by WP:BOLD, too. --Dhartung | Talk 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point merging, the main article already has all the information. I've removed the prod tag as it's already here. It could be redirected, but I'm not sure he's notable enough to warrant it.--Tango 15:07, 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 delete. Proto::type 11:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The capsules[edit]

The capsules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article doesn't quite assert notability, and judging on Google hits there might be some, but only just. Leaving the decision to the community (no vote from me) Duja► 09:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see very little on google, NN. Tractorkingsfan 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on face value, would appear to pass WP:BAND for the two albums, but would have to investigate further as to the notability of the label. That's the trouble with this article, not enough references, so we have to go find them. Bubba hotep 14:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to their MySpace site, it's an EP and an LP. Scrub that criteria from WP:BAND, then. This appears to verify the Sponge Bob thing, but I'm not overly convinced. Bubba hotep 14:52, 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 Rename to Politics of Khuzestan and keep for now. Although it shows POV, I can't see that it was forked solely with that intention. The main Khuzestan Province article would be too big and unbalanced with this included. If the issues aren't cleaned up quickly feel free to bring it back here. Yomanganitalk 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic politics of Khuzestan[edit]

Article is a clear POV fork, non-encyclopedic, contains much WP:OR and parts fail WP:V. If we look at the Talk:Ethnic politics of Khuzestan we find that the article was about the Ahvaz Bombings which now has an article, and all the useful informations here are already at Ahvaz Bombings, Khuzestan, History of Khuzestan, and Arabs of Khuzestan. When it was started it should have taken to Wikinews. Anything that is WP:V here should be moved to the articles I mention previously. This article is not needed and there is no similar article like it anywhere in other resources or encyclopedias and the title is WP:OR. Khorshid 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree Khorshid, too. This subject doesn't look to need to have an article, in addition its information are mostly in the articles like Ahvaz Bombings, Khuzestan, History of Khuzestan, and Arabs of Khuzestan, though this article is mostly analytical and may contradicts "No original research" policy.So I think it'd better to be deleted.--Soroush ☺talk | ☼Contributions 11:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems that wikipedia should have an article to capture the ethnic tensions that are documentable in this region. Ahvaz Bombings and Arabs of Khuzestan could be merged to this article. If you want to rename the article to say "tensions" rather than "politics" I would be ok with that. According to Amnesty International [18], Much of Iran's Arab community lives in the province of Khuzestan which borders Iraq. It is strategically important because it is the site of much of Iran’s oil reserves. Historically, the Arab community has been marginalised and discriminated against. Tension has mounted among the Arab population since April 2005, when scores of Arabs were killed, hundreds injured and hundreds more detained during and following demonstrations. The demonstrations were undertaken in protest at a letter which came to light allegedly written in 1999 by a presidential adviser, who denied its authenticity. This appeared to set out policies for the reduction of the Arab population of Khuzestan, including resettling Arabs in other regions of Iran, resettling non-Arabs in the province, and replacing Arabic place names with Persian ones MPS 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Few points: 1) Please show evidence of ethnic tension between Arabs and other ethnic groups in the region (such as Persians, Lurs, Bakhtiaris, Qashqais, Afsharis, etc.) 2) Why should Ahvaz Bombings and Arabs of Khuzestan be merged here when it should be the other way? i.e. Merge what is WP:V here (very little) into Arabs of Khuzestan. 3) WP is not a soapbox or a political platform and the way you quote Amnesty (and bolding such a huge portion of text) is clearly evidence of this POV. 4) The Amnesty report is not neutral and it contains factual inaccuracies. Also the Amnesty report only shows tension between Arabs and the regime. In case you didnt know, there is tension between ALL Iranians and the regime. This is NOTHING to do with so-called "ethnic tension", "ethnic politic" or "ethnic conflict". Again WP is not a soapbox, not for advocacy, not for propaganda, and not to prove a original claim or point. Khorshid 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV fork-y. --Wooty  Woot? | contribs 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is well-sourced, and is a valid topic. Any POV problems can be fixed, deletion is not the solution. Khoikhoi 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPS. I also add that I remember seeing a documentry on Al-Jazeera regarding this, confirming what Amnesty International said. The local Al-Jazeera station there was shut-down by the iranain government for reporting this. Jidan 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article can be dealt with in the Khuzestan province article or Arabs of Iran. Virtually all the sources here are from separatists sites. Easily a country like former Ba'athist iraq can support a small group and that small group can setup a website and then propogate their political POV which is definitely not neutral. BTW is there is an article on Berber ethnic politics in Algeria? I think the genocide against Iranians by Arabs can also warrant an article. So these sort of articles are not helpful to anyone and are too POV oriented to have any neutrality. I do not see any valid reason for this article since it is all POV so far. --alidoostzadeh 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how many Ethnic politics of... articles are there? Articles like this can easily be just POV. At best include a section in the Khuzestan or Arabs of Khuzestan article. This article actually seems more like a modern history of Khuzestan article. Khuzestan article is the best place for this.Khosrow II 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khoikhoi. E104421 10:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Khosrow II --Pejman47 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Khorshid. Kaveh 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a POV fork and a huge chunk of the article is nothing but obvious (and certainly not neutral) promotional material for separatist political groups, most of which don't even seem to meet the threshold for verifiability. Accordingly, there are several other standard and generic articles about this region and/or the peoples of this region. metaspheres 20:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

*Keep We have to develop "Ethnic politics of Khuzestan" article, instead of removing it. Human rights related articles have to be kept before all else.--Karcha 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you are confused. This is not a "human rights" article but an article about so-called "ethnic politics". Also your reasoning is clearly POV. Khorshid 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per nom. When we can merge it , why should we keep it?--Sa.vakilian 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ali doostzadeh and khosrow. Gol 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. DragonRouge 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete POV fork-y, the cited parts should be merged into Arabs of Khuzestan. --Mardavich 10:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your block on me has prevented me from making an important point on the deleting of the Ethnic Politics of Khuzestan article [19]. As this block extends beyond the deadline for the deletion, I would like you to pass on my points.
1. The article was created as the information contained within it was judged to be too lengthy for the Khuzestan article alone: [20]
2. This was done with consensus of editors, although the name was changed from "ethnic conflict" to "ethnic politics" as "conflict" was judged too strong and POV and anyway it was recognised that the issues were of political importance.
3. A lot of work has gone into the article from people of all POVs, with the involvement of Iranian editors, and it has not been the subject of any lengthy edit war, despite the sensitive nature of the subject. This work will be lost if it is simply deleted without a merger with other articles - which I think is Khorshid's intention. It is worthwhile noting that Khorshid has made no attempt to edit the article.
4. The issue of minority rights in Khuzestan is of significant public interest [21] [22] and deserves a separate article, with details on the actors involved.
Please pass on my comments to the AfD page, so people understand the context of why the article was created.
1)There is not just Khuzestan article - there is also Arabs of Khuzestan (where most of the Arab stuff that is WP:V - not separatist propaganda - should go).
2)Both are POV and violate WP:OR. No credible evidence is there to prove this. What sources is there only shows tension between Arabs and regime, and this is same for all Iranians.
3)I have no bad intentions. Most of the article is not WP:V and violates WP:OR like the separtist political groups. What is WP:V should go into Arabs of Khuzestan where almost all the Arab information already exists and to History of Khuzestan. Terrorism info should go into Ahvaz Bombings. Since those articles already exist this article is only a POV fork and this is against WP policy.
4)UNPO and British Ahwazi Friends Society, the two links you provide, are not only not neutral they promote separatist agenda and false history. There is fact and then there is propaganda and they are 100% not fact. Also those links dont discuss "minority" rights but "Arab" rights and the current article only talks about Arabs. There are a ton of minorities in Khuzestan beside Arab. And like I said there is already Arabs of Khuzestan (which be renamed Khuzestani Arabs). And it is funny that you now agree that Arabs are a minority yet before you claimed Arabs are majority in Khuzestan! Can you make up your mind about it??? Khorshid 11:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also if we are to take your comment seriously can you please explain this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ahwaz???? All I can say is WP:POINT and this policy is applied to this article too with the "sources" you provide. Khorshid 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (To Khorshid)

Amnesty International has highlighted a number of human rights abuses against Ahwazi Arabs in Khuzestan. In 2005, these included:
The persecution of Arabs in Khuzestan http://web.amnesty.org/wire/October2005/Iran
The alleged killing of at least 31 people in unrest in April 2005 http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130172005?open&of=ENG-IRN
The arbitrary arrest, possible torture and incommunicado detentention of Arab writer and journalist Yusef Azizi Bani-Torof http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130202005?open&of=ENG-IRN
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130322005?open&of=ENG-IRN
The incommunicado detention of Taher Mahmoud Tamimi, Mohammad Jalali and at least 37 others in a government crack-down following unrest in April http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130482005?open&of=ENG-IRN
The incommunicado detention and possible torture of close relatives of Arab tribal leader Hajj Salem Bawi http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130512005?open&of=ENG-IRN
The incommunicado detention and possible torture of Hamid Qate'Pour (teacher), Emad Rafi'i (teacher) and Mohammad Hezbawi (also known as Hezbaee Zadeh) (newspaper editor) http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130592005?open&of=ENG-IRN
Four Arabs arrested during demonstrations during El Al-Fitr in 6 November http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130762005?open&of=ENG-IRN
Amnesty has also claimed that "hundreds" of Arabs were arrested in 2005 during a crack-down on anti-government demonstrations.

I'm not confused anything, but i think the confused one is you. Spend more time for reading and learning instead of disparaging everything--Karcha 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spend more time for reading and learning instead of disparaging everything" I have warned you before about making this kinds of attacks. Khorshid 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E104421, Khoikhoi, Karcha Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you did not login when adding your comment here? Khorshid 19:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: politics should not influence history. Unfortunately some with ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab ideology want to influence this respectable forum that should be an educational tool. Arabs of Iran as a non-dominant, ethnic, linguistic and a national minority have never had the opportunity to express their identity in a Persian-dominated Iran during both, the monarchist or the current clerical regime. So it is just to allow this minority a few lines in Wikipedia. It is utterly undemocratic for the Persians to push for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsaid (talk • contribs) — Alsaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP Please: Ahwazi-Arabs are indigenous to the area of Khuzestan. They date back before Islam. About 5000 years ago, long before the Achaemenid left Russia and headed toward the Iranian plateau, a Semitic nation by the name of Elamite lived in Khuzestan. They have left us signs of their blooming civilization in the ruins of Susa, Ghagharzanbill and other parts of Khuzestan, Lurestan and Fars. The Old Testament mentions their name for the first time. So we the Arabs of Iran are decedents of the Elimite. Kasravi, a well respected Iranian historian, in his book titled “500 years history of Khuzestan” writes "but it is certain and there is proof for it that during the Parthian era Arab tribes were living in provinces of Kerman, Khuzestan, Bahrain and Fars". Kasravi refers to the Tabari history book, the first Muslim historian whose work is still universally accepted and writes ‘Aam (banu-Am tribe). This means during the Sasanid era, Iran had many kingdoms, of which Aghlim al-Ahwaz (province of al-Ahwaz) was one. Other historians such as Mohammad Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Batota and ibn Athir travel books as well as many other historians such as bin abi Yaaghobi, ibn Haghol, Estakhri, Nasser Khssrow, ibn Balkhi, el-Kamil, Habib al-Sair, Askendar Beg, Najm al molik Ghafari and others reference the existence of Indigenous Ahwazi Arabs in Eghlim (region) of al-Ahwaz or Arabistan, in one way or the other. So to say there are other ethnic groups live in Iran, it may be true but they are not indigenes to the area. In fact up to the discovery of oil in Khuzestan in 1908, the area was 100% was inhabited by indigenous Ahwazi-Arab tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsaid (talk • contribs) — Alsaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - The subject is noteworthy and is an issue of growing media interest due to human rights issues and unfounded claims by the Iranian regime that Western governments are responsible for unrest in the province. If there are concerns about the title, then it should be changed. A section is also needed on the province's Mandean community, which is also subjected to discrimination and state terrorism. But as the Arabs are the largest ethnic group, they naturally receive the most coverage. The issues go well beyond recent bomb attacks. Additionally, the article as it stands has 64 references, mostly Amnesty International but also including Bloomburg, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Al-Jazeera and other reliable news sources. Therefore, the claims of breaching WP:OR and WP:V policies are questionable - indeed, this article is one of the most heavily referenced on Wikipedia.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 21:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is amazing yakhi. Just before you were saying Arabs were minority and now you say again that they are majority. "this article is one of the most heavily referenced on Wikipedia." < LMAO Is good to have ppl like you around. Dont ever change. Khorshid 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arabs are a minority in Iran and a majority in Khuzestan.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahlan wa sahlan yakhi. That sounds more like the ahwaz we all know and love. But regretfully your comment is not WP:V Khorshid 23:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no particular objections to this, only that the reason why the article was originally created was because it was decided by consensus that the Khuzestan article was getting too long. A separate article was created for the issues surrounding ethnic unrest in the province - not just the bombings, but also the geopolitical issues and human rights concerns. There have been other spin-offs from this article since then - eg Anti-Iranianism, which goes into greater detail about claims of British involvement in the province's ethnic politics.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to merge with Khuzestan since there is Arabs of Khuzestan and Ahvaz Bombings. Anti-Iranianism is like Anti-Arabism or Anti-Semitism it is not about exact locations but general topic. saying "ethnic politics of Khuzestan" is POV and WP:OR. A wise man once says "Gimme a @#$# break!" =P Khorshid 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and possibly rename it to Human rights in Khuzestan (or another alternative), the idea behind the article is valid, but "ethnic politics of" can seem POV. So let's rename it to "Human rights in..". Every country and some region articles in Wiki have their own "Human rights in..." articles, so it would be simply normal that Khuzestan has its own human rights article. Baristarim 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think every Turkish province should have a "Human rights" article even tho Human rights in Turkey already is there just like there is already Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran? What about Human rights in Turkish Kurdistan?? This is getting out of hand. Khorshid 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the human rights related issues relating to minorities such as the Arabs be transferred under a new section on ethnic groups in Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran? Or perhaps a new article on Ethnic Minority Rights in Iran, to cover all minorities? I don't really mind this, but I think it would be a mistake to put human rights issues under Khuzestan (which I think is more appropriate for historical and geographical data) or Arabs of Khuzestan (which should be anthropological rather than political). Also, I am not sure where information on regionalist, autonomist and separatist groups goes, if this article was to be deleted. There should be something there as this is an issue that has been evident for decades and is particularly important at present.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your last question is already answered: Arabs of Khuzestan. If they are WP:V. The first point about ethnic groups in Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran is valid - it should go there (as long as no OR) but not have its own article like "ethnic politics of so-and-so province". Thats OR. Khorshid 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article, and I will change my opinion a little bit. I still think that the idea behind the article is valid, but I have to agree with Ahwaz that there might be something more than simple human rights issues.. I can also hear Khorshid's comments that some of the stuff about human rights can go into Human rights in Iran article, but I think that there is enough info about it that it could have its own article. But considering that there are some other issues talked about in the article, I think some other names could also be appropriate. I just proposed "human rights in.." because it is a quite universal word that can cover many things with subsequent sub-sections with different titles. So I don't know.. Depending on what other content can be added "human rights in khuzestan" or even the original name "ethnic conflict in Khuzestan" can be appropriate, I just thought that human rights could have been a less inflammatory compromise for a title. But the idea beneath is definitely valid in my opinion. Baristarim 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Khoikhoi. Any problem with POV can be discussed on the Talk page to improve the article.Heja Helweda 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The title is OR. Show me evidence of "ethnic politics of Khuzestan". Khorshid 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked the title - it can be changed, in my opinion. One editor originally created the article as "ethnic conflict in Khuzestan" in order to put relevant content from the Khuzestan article in its own article, but there was consensus that this was too strong as there has never been a suggestion that there is communal violence between ethnic groups in the province. It was changed to "ethnic politics" without much thought. But no-one really knew a better alternative. It is more than a human rights issue, but indigenous grievances touch on the area's historical autonomy, inequality, linguistic rights, civil rights, geopolitics, etc.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the political groups are moved to Arabs of Khuzestan you dont have much left. Whats left (the Amnesty stuff) is moved to Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran easy. Terrorism info is moved to Ahvaz Bombings. Khorshid 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suggest relisting to raise notice and work towards consensus if not reached. Khorshid 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just rename it Politics of Khuzestan (there are plenty of "politics of ..." articles on Wikipedia), so that wider political issues can be taken into account - including election results, political traditions, etc? I can see that just transferring the political stuff to Arabs of Khuzestan will continue to generate problems, with users arguing that too much importance is paid to just Arabs and that Arabs are being defined solely in terms of opposition to the Iranian regime. Such issues are often more complex. Taking the "ethnic" element out of the title need not lead to the removal of current political content, but could broaden it to include broader issues. What do you think?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You see problem there is Iran is not like USA where state/province has autonomy. Iran has strong centralised government and provinces do not have any kind of autonomy (we can argue that one or two have it but thats something else - khuzestan has no autonomy). All the political groups except one are separatist and based outside Iran and some of them are not even verifiable. So Politics of Khuzestan makes no sense because there is no autonomous poltical system and also there are no ordinary political groups of Khuzestan, just one that is Arab in Iran (has no power), one that is "pro-federalism" outside Iran, and the rest are separatist/terrorist. So they belong in Arabs of Khuzestan. Khorshid 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with the conflation of separatist and terrorist. I also think that there are political forces that are particular to Khuzestan - certain personalities, the way the place is governed due to its geographical and strategic significance, etc. While Iran is highly centralised, each province has a different set of political dynamics - this is what makes Iran, a highly diverse country, such a fascinating place. I think there should be articles on the politics of each major province and perhaps Khuzestan could be a good starting point.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear what other ppls have to say about that. My issue is that it will be mostly an Arab article with focus on south Khuzestan, like this one. In fact the only difference would be the change in titles. Khorshid 01:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The electoral politics and governorship of Khuzestan are not adequately covered by an ethnic focus. A broader article will make it less about ethnicity and more about politics, of which ethnicity plays just a part. Why not change the title to Politics of Khuzestan, clean up the article and see whether the problems you have raised have been addressed. If there are still problems by 20 December (a month after the conclusion of this AfD), then open up a new AfD and we can look at other ways of organising the material.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There can be no arguments for deletion for any article because of its shortness since we have many more shorter articles about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets, so as long as the title is correct, there is no reason why any article couldn't exist. If there is a "main article - sub-article" relation with another article, the correct remedy is to introduce a few sentences in the main, then put a "see also: X" at the end of that section. POV issues can always be addressed in the article itself, and title should be NPOV, but deletion, no. Baristarim 03:17, 20 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. —Centrx→talk • 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-State Orange[edit]

Mid-State Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails to assert notability Amists talk • contribs 10:30, 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. DS 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubilia[edit]

Non-notable neologism (161 Ghits, none of them independent of the website that coined it, this article and its mirrors, or the webpages of club members); WP:WEB (it's a phrase invented and used by a very very small online Mitsubishi Collector's Club with 25 members); even WP:VANITY (it was authored by a single purpose account created by a club member who has made no subsequent contribution to Wikipedia). DeLarge 10:32, 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. Dakota 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilcox-McCandlish law[edit]

This article was deleted by me after the original AFD. However, the main editor has disputed the validity of the deletion and since there were few comments, I have undeleted it and re-opened this AFD. No vote from me as it is a procedural nomination. Yomanganitalk 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: first nomination
  • Strong, firm delete per original AfD nom; utterly non-notable neologism. Xtifr tälk 10:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of no use as an article here, breaks just about every relevant policy I can bring to mind. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I do like defending various bits of web or net history, but delete as basically WP:NFT. If it had been picked up and widely used, cf. Godwin's Law, that would be one thing. --Dhartung | Talk 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and the reasons given in the first afd. Just not notable enough. MER-C 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day." Not notable. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original nom. I should have contacted the creator of the article, but I assumed that he would notice the AfD on his watchlist. Nevertheless, the original nomination was entirely sound, as this article satisfies at least two criteria for deletion - it is a non-notable neologism and there is a clear conflict of interest.--Nydas 12:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be true, but there is no evidence that it is notable. The citations are basically back to the subject/apparent creater of the article. Get it written up in Wired and the New York Times and then re-create the article. Edison 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since the first AfD nomination, the article has not been updated with any references to the print media or other reliable sources.This leads me to repeat my original opinion. Not referred to in any printed media, so far as I can tell. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, which says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." A NY Times article would certainly suffice, but cites in online forums don't seem sufficient. Especially with only 501 Google hits. Wikipedia should not be the means of publicizing a neologism. EdJohnston 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Go ahead and delete it. Or, rather, I request that it and its subpages be moved into my user space for now; I haven't had time to address the actually legitimate concerns raised here (and refute the illegitimate ones), but I do intend to eventually. I have too much on my plate right now to improve and defend this article (and, yes, I do realize that it does have some genuine problems.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:09, 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 keep; WP:BIO stipulates that any sportsperson competing or previously competing in a fully professional competition is notable. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Porter (racing driver)[edit]

Mark Porter (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable racing driver, only notable for a few days after fatal crash. Delete. --Necrobrawler 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It dosn't matter if the page stays, many pages are, as the user above writs, "non-notable." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.192.203 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-15T11:26:28.
    • The presence of one page that ought to be deleted is not a reason to keep another. — Haeleth Talk 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above links to a disambiguation page, not to the page for Mark Porter, the racing driver. I don't think you want to delete the disambiguation page. --Charlene 12:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A sad tale, no doubt, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. — Haeleth Talk 18:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The V8 Supercar series, which Mark Porter raced in, is the most popular form of motorsport in Australia. It is on a par with regional touring car series, which are inherently notable - see Touring car racing. The series is shown on television in many countries, and reported on in the international press. He easily fits the notability criteria for Wikipedia. – Readro 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professional motor racer who competed in notable events as per WP:BIO. His received attention in both Australia and New Zealand and Google News Archive gets 77 results for "Mark Porter" Supercar. [23].
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - V8 Supercar is in the major leagues of car racing Down Under. That he competed at that level is notable. Even without this tragedy, there would be a strong argument for keep. --Oakshade 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brian | (Talk) 05:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, users only other actions are deletion noms and vandalism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand career. Driver is notable enough for inclusion for Australian and New Zealand racing, not just death. --Scott Davis Talk 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Scott's point above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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) 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lister[edit]

Philip Lister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Claim to notability is doubtful. The "best seller" he wrote was published in July 06 and is currently at 180,289 in Amazon UK sales ranks [24]. Being distantly related to famous people doesn't add anything. Delete (or possibly userfy if User:Cuban dm turns out to be Philip Lister) Spondoolicks 11:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - writing a book is no longer an assertion of notability due to vanity presses. So tagged. MER-C 11:57, 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.

List of Peruvian companies[edit]

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Peruvian companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Listcruft, unmaintainable (unless it's going to run to many thousands of entries). Withdrawn nomination. Amists talk • contribs 11:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - arbitary list (no criteria for inclusion). A category would be better. MER-C 11:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists in general can be valuable because redlinks serve as a reminder of articles that need to be created. As for the concern about "no criteria for inclusion", WP:CORP probably serves as an adequate set of criteria. --
  • Keep. Listcruft? Did you bother to check the supracategory Category:Lists of companies by country. Every country has a list, and I don't see parameters for inclusion on any of the lists including the United States. Do you have a problem with lists, or is your problem with Peru? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That it may ultimately include "thousands of entries" doesn't seem to be remotely confirmed or even plausible at this point. The coverage of the developping world is poor at Wikipedia and lists involving those nations help with systemic bias. There is a category for these lists as someone mentioned. Lastly "Listcruft" is a disparagement, it's not an actual reason to delete anything.--T. Anthony 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies by country provides these lists in different format anyway - I should have been aware of supercategory and am withdrawing nomination Amists talk • contribs 01:04, 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 speedy keep - nomination appears to be withdrawn, only opinion favourable to deletion no longer applies as article now referenced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development hell[edit]

Development hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Endless list of unsourced, non-notable and/or original research. Take your pick really. Only source is a link to a site that has been shutdown by the hosting company MartinDK 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As originial research unless some cites can be found. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Keep - Inspiring insider-/backstage-information and personally good entertainment, but I agree the necessarity of the article is not completely relevant. Although I think it should be kept since it is a heavy document and the main author probably spent a lot of valuable time compiling the list. The examples can maybe be left out but the jargon as general should be kept. Karmus (Markus Lund) 13:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Development hell is a real phenomenon, it's used as a reference to why so many films don't get made, and Tales from Development Hell is available on Amazon. Also consider these various references: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. DS 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found and added numerous references to the notability of the phenomenon from Variety, the New York Times, and other mainstream sources. Most books or screenplays purchased do not become films, and some languish for 50 years. Edit boldly to remove randomly listed films and other works which do not have cites or which do not clarify and exemplify the concept and make the article encyclopedic, or which lack citations and are original research. Edison 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Excellent. Sometimes the only way to salvage an article is to bring it here. The term itself is notable and easy to verify but the list needs cleaning up because when I nominated it it was orphaned listcruft of dubious value beyond the definition of the term itself. MartinDK 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a notable term and passes WP:Notability Valoem talk 19:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A noteworthy term in the industry as per above. "Needs cleanup" is not a reason to delete. Shimeru 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is NOT clean up. Whispering 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it's jargon and possible WP:NEO, it still satisfies WP:V and is a commonly used phrase.--WaltCip 01:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up massively, the term is notable but the examples are...excessive, to say the least. The objective should be an example or two to illustrate the term, not to illustrate every time it's ever possibly occurred. Seraphimblade 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete all but handful of examples to be used in actual prose. Interrobamf 16:02, 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

Dealing with corruption in Canada[edit]

Dealing with corruption in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Utterly useless list of links to other articles. Only one line of value which can easily be merged. MartinDK 12:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - hmmm, that is strange, not quite a how to, more appropriate for some canadaian reference site. If somebody is looking for information on that, they would probably not come here. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't us.wikipedia.org; Canadian subjects are no less notable than American ones. However, this isn't a subject but a very short bout of original research ending in a triumvirate of links. --Charlene 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research as well; what reliable sources does the article give to prove that these are the only recourses Canadians have when dealing with graft and corruption? (Hint: They missed the most important one, the ballot box.) --Charlene 12:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there any question?Balloonman 21:03, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-EBE OS[edit]

Wi-EBE OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

nn, all the ghits I can find are actually for ' James Wiebe' who is a hard drive developer Amists talk • contribs 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No real assertion of notability, a whopping one ghit [31] (after removing the hyphen). Probable WP:COI/HOAX based on creator's edit history. People dream things up and give them names all the time, no reason to be creating articles. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have an alternative for storing stuff on my computer... it's called writing it down on bits of paper and chucking it in a box in the back of my car. Bubba hotep 14:59, 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, redirect to Star Fox Command. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fox Command Bosses[edit]

Star Fox Command Bosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, that includes a game guide. Possible transwiki to strategy wiki? Seems a shame because the user has put some effort into this. James086 Talk | Contribs 12:42, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. Also, forums, blogs, chatrooms, etc are not considered reliable sources, so should not be referred to as the sole source of infomation for an article, or indeed as a source for any article information. (aeropagitica) 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian select farm foods[edit]

Canadian select farm foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sure they have delicious foods. Next time I go to Canada, I may even eat some. But due to the article claiming the company make its money by going round houses and selling their produce a la travelling salesmen, I henceforth feel that the CSFF is evil, and I must quash their attempts at getting famous. Hell, if I were in charge of a food company, I'd write myself a nice little article on Wikipedia too. Then ppl from as far away as Wales could find out about this evil company. EVIL. EVIL. It's claimed "their salespeople try to sell you a year's supply of meat and other food products along with a free deep freezer (yours to keep after re-signing for a second year) on the spot". And frankly, we can't have that. How intimidating of them, taking advantage of the poor Canadians' friendliness as willingness to spend money of stuff. I also urge you all to go to their [url=http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20788] forum] and say how dissatisfied you all are with them. I'm gonna go there, pretend I'm a Canadian lady with 3 kids, and slag them all off. You know why? Coz that is all I can do to put a stop to this nasty company.........oh, wait. We're trying to get the article deleted, not the actual company. You know, one day I hope to be able to delete companies as easily as deleting encyclopedia entries on companies. That'll be swell. Dangherous 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:23, 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 Deleted because the author has userfied the article contents and blanked the page. (aeropagitica) 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Wet Bruwer[edit]

De Wet Bruwer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be written by himself. While this in itself may not be grounds for deletion, I'm in a particularly deletionist mood today, and am looking for the slightest reason to delete any article. I've not done a google search, but doubt it'll show much Dangherous 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - violates WP:AUTO, questionable notability. MER-C 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Author has blanked the article and userfied it. VegaDark 20:46, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Sampson Parsons[edit]

Ernest Sampson Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's all in some weird language (probably French). Someone had a go at translating it, but I think we should save them the trouble an send it to hell instead. This guy's not notable, and we all know it Dangherous 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "weird" language is Spanish. Caknuck 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 6 non-wiki ghits, all on free web hosts. Unverifiable and unreferenced. MER-C 13:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. Nominators should restrict their comments to reasons why the article is up for AfD, and not make comments that could be taken as narrow-minded ("some weird language", for instance - it's not weird just because the nominator doesn't understand or recognize it). See the comments about Canada above as well. --Charlene 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent attestations of notability. Wikipedia is not a site for genealogical postings. It sounds like the gent might be notable, based on the account, but couldn't find evidence of it. Edison 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs citations and major clean up. Until then, it's not up to snuff. Caknuck 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From what I can gather, this is about a 19th century historical(?) figure. Google hits are not availing for people who died a hundred years ago. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I put some time into translating the Spanish to piece together the paragraphs already in English. All of the article is about the subject's grandfather, the Earl of Rosse. The only bits of the article that pertain directly to the subject is the geneaology. If the subject is a legitimate descendant of Irish nobility, there should be some sources available for citation, online or not. Caknuck 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RFerreira 06:29, 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 Jni. (aeropagitica) 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experiment 001[edit]

Experiment 001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No claim of notability. Someon redirected it to Lilo and Stitch recently, if that helps Dangherous 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as lacking context. Not a useful redirect either. So tagged. MER-C 13:31, 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 Speedily deleted by Jni. (aeropagitica) 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-ups (album)[edit]

F-ups (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Makes no claim to notability...Hey, what's that Wikipedia page that says sth like "Make an attempt to make this more interesting than a pile of rubbish" or something. Dangherous 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - doesn't even tell me who the album is by. Tagged for lacking context. MER-C 13:30, 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.--Húsönd 05:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feces of death[edit]

Feces of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable rip-off of Faces of Death website. Dangherous 16:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. I'm interested in how someone could "submit their own suicide video"?! Bubba hotep 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the virtual impossibility of maintaining a website centered around viewers submitting their own suicide videos, the only Google results for a search of their supposed victim, "Eugene Belford," are for the Fischer Stevens character in the movie Hackers [32]. If this isn't a hoax, it is clearly an intentional joke, and is therefore, completely and utterly non-notable. Wavy G 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn, I see non establishment of notability. Simpleerob 05:10, 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, after seeing the artice expanded. As nominator, I now find this subject particularly interesting, and it has references now. --Dangherous 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow[edit]

Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One of my favourite pages I've AFDed for a long time. I doubt that Wikipedia is the place to have cows. I would write a satirical page Wikipedia:I'm sorry, but we don't allow articles on models of cows, no matter how interesting they may be or WP:NOCOWS... Note to the closing admin. If it's deleted, please can you move the page to User:Dangherous/Gladys the swiss Dairy Cow - seriously, I'm looking to collect quasi-funny deleted articles. Dangherous 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly object to this AFD. Having read wikipedia's deletion criteria, I fail to see the grounds for deletion. Ths subject is a factual discussion of a serious work of art. the images are public domain, and the content is of wide interest to the community. The problem here is that I havent had time yet to continue create the content - but I plan to demonstrate the intellectual property, techniques, evolution and and artistic history that is behind Gladys

    You see, gladys the swiss dairy cow is in fact a serious and very well known piece of ongoing performance art- having been created in over 50 forms and has appeared on television, been front page news widely circulated publications inclusing the Connecticut Post, on more than a dozen occations, and has been featured in two parades.

    An article documenting her development, the artists creative methods and the overall artistic merit is at least as worthy of entry as any other artists work.

    Note to the admin who rejects the AFD: just wait to see how much interest the completed article generates.--68.191.43.133 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now - maybe somene you can help me on the fine points of wikipedia. I really don't know how to make sure that I have followed the formal criteria to object to the deletion - so if I've midded something I would like to know and I'm not sure what to do to get out of deletion jeopardy - but I'd be glad for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.43.133 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-15 01:56:13

*Delay Deletion While currently an absurdist comedy piece, I say give this editor a shot. If references from reliable sources (like the Connecticut Post as promised above) that demonstrate notability of this subject can be shown, then there might be something to this. After all, this article was only created a few days ago --Oakshade 07:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) "Vote" changed. see below. --Oakshade 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The AFD discssion period lasts at least 5 days. You have 5 days. Uncle G 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My stalker is back. Why do I have 5 days? My comments were about the editors who feel this is worthy. --Oakshade 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment was "Delay Deletion". I repeat: You have 5 days. Saying that we should delay deletion betrays a misunderstanding of the AFD process. There is a delay built in. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll grant you that the art may be absurd, but the artistic merit and notabiity is not. Thank you for your support for me to have the time to prove that.

    here's the first few of dozens of published documents that support the case:

    From the Fairfield Citizen: Image:Part_1_article.jpg

    From the Connecticut Post: Image:Gladys_and_sophie_front_page.jpg

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.lebinski (talk • contribs)

  • Holdfire for now, lets see what James can make of it. We feature works of art under the same notability guidelines as we do people and places. Just be warned James, all your work may yet be headed for the wikibin, so make it a good un.Bilbo B 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, where can I find the notabilility guidelines?--James.lebinski 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can appreciate that this is a longstanding family art tradition, but it is a family tradition nonetheless, and I don't see how this particular yard decoration is more notable than, say, my mom's neighbors who decorate their property with half a zillion watts of Christmas lights come December. The newspaper mentions are a good start but these appear to be fluff pieces, not an examination of Gladys as art (WP:N requires "multiple non-trivial published works"). Note also WP:COI. A web page would be a much more appropriate place for this. Sorry. bikeable (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moo per Bikeable. --Aaron 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncle G - great comment - I'm really new to WIKI so trying to write the article while addresing wiki-guardians concerns is difficult in real time - especially since I have limited technical abilit in wiki.

    I'll investigate the proper refernce help - the current images posted to the AFD debate are designed to serve as proof points that the subject is notable, and have not yet been added to the actual content.

    Bikeable and Aaron - the art is more than a family tradition, although you are correct in identifying it as being created by a family of artists. The piece has been featured in charity auctions, present at charity events ( most recently a haunted house/barnyard in Monroe, which was visited by more than 2,000 persons over three days - resulting in more than a ton of non-perishable food donations to a local soup kitchen. The artwork was the subject of an entry into West Haven CT's Cow Parade, and has also been widely photographed

    Moreover, the ability to review, understand and perceive art is in itself relatively undefinable, as is the communication of a point of view on art - to you it may be fluff to have dozens of fromt page articles in connecticut papers - I'd disagree.

    To my original point, Gladys is a work of art, just like every other piece listed in wikipedia. The details of the development and evolution of this art, the techniques, the outcomes, and the notability of this could very well serve as a living history of a one-day world-famous piece.

    From a notability perspective as well, I can document more than two hundred written communications from art critics ( albeit amateur) and recognition by local officals as proof of wide interest and merit. In fact, a float with Gladys as a centerpiece was awarded "Best Appearing Float, Services Club" by the Town of Fairfield's memorial day commitee in 2004 and a similar entry with gladys won "honorable mention in 2005.

    So, all in all, an ongoing piece of performance art is definetly more than a once a year christmas display, (although gladys has been a christmas tree complete with an outline of lights)

    Just because the topic is light hearted, doesn't mean it is not of encyclopaedic quality.

    Give me some time to prove this please.--James.lebinski 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You have at least until the AFD discussion period ends, as pointed out above. Please note that private communications to you from art critics do not satisfy our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Sources must be published. We need multiple non-trivial published works (e.g. in-depth reviews by established art critics, news articles by journalists, accounts by historians) that discuss this work of art specifically. Again, see the likes of Gävle goat#References and Biggest ball of twine#References. Uncle G 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, all these references etc. seem to be local. There are many millions of works of art that are notable purely on a local scale. Merely having been featured on the front page of one's local newspaper cannot qualify something for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. If this is a work of art that has the potential to become famous but is not, in fact, famous now, then unfortunately we simply cannot include it now. When it has become at least nationally recognised, yes, but at present I must regretfully say that I'm not convinced this meets the criteria. (Note to closing admin: if this is eventually deleted, be sure to userfy it so James doesn't completely lose all his hard work.) — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--James.lebinski 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Slow Down - then consider deleting - I can't keep up with all the policy reserach and write the article at the same time I've now read Uncle g's treatise on notability. I believe that this passes the multiple non-trivial sources test, and further believe that haleth;'s e notion that a "notability" threshold must be national is flawed. The combined circulation/audience of the publications cited approached one hundred thousand - which is substantial notability. Moreover, while I haven;t actiallu counted the words used to describe this art in the publications, my estimate is that each published article has been between 1000 and 3000 words. There was a professional photographer at my home last evening taking pictures for yet another newspaper arcticle to be rune before christmas so I said potential to be "world famous" . The art is already famous in Connecticut.[reply]

In the middle of all this discussion, I'd like to note that I respect and appreciate the feedback- so my efforts will be in complying with the policies of wiki - which I fully expect to achieve--James.lebinski 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Check the article first - I found on line-references to suport the notability aspect of this argument - and added them to the article. Multiple sources, multiple journalists, wide publication, I'm on my way to addressing the concerns. How's that Uncle G??????

  • Weak Keep I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. On one hand, it looks like it might be mainly of local interest, though a claim to statewide noteworthiness has been made. On the other... it's a quirky article, but it's treated in some depth, and with references. It certainly appears to pass WP:V. It is interesting. Is it important? We have no guidelines specifically for physical works of art, but taking WP:FILMS as an example, it could arguably pass the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criterion, and it's also had multiple exhibitions in different parts of the state. Finally, effort is clearly being made to continue to improve the article. In the face of all that, and lacking any strong reason for deletion, I say keep it for now and see how it develops. Shimeru 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently it also won "Best Appearing Float" at CT's largest parade. I'd missed it before, but that's another potential argument to noteworthiness. Am leaning more toward a full keep now. Shimeru 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For God's sake, it's a standard Cow Parade statue that one person has fixed up and repainted. Aggressively non-notable, whatever local-interest bits it picks up in hometown papers. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil Calton The fact that you do not regard this as a performance art is clear, but there is a saying " de gustibus non-disputandum est" or in English - there is no accounting for taste. A significant number of others disagree with your position.

To the facts/policies here - I have offered proof of wide interest, significant notabiilty and and circulation, and this is in fact an ongoing piece of performance art - so if you would like to debate the facts about that according to Wiki policy, or back up your assertion that the largest circulating newspaper in Southern Ct is "hometown" , or that coverage on the largest cable network in Connecticut is insignificant then lets have that converrsation.

  • Keep I think it's become more than just another plastic cow. The article seems thoroughly done. It's not "Whistler's Mother" nor "Starry, Starry Night", but Wikipedia is not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Well, not only has there been a great improvement in the article from when this AfD started [33], but WP:Verification appears to have been met. Not exactly a Gian Lorenzo Bernini piece, but it has notable stature nonetheless. And per Shimeru, it is interesting. --Oakshade 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much content added but I'm Tired now, but much more authientication, contenmt and images to come

oakshade..glad to see you are open mindded Dlohcierekim greetings from across the sea

Uncle g. thanks for the edits/improvements

Could someone help with the text gaps introduced by the large images/small text

Now its almost midnight on the east caoast...have at it wiki-police..see you in the a.m.--James.lebinski 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if verified. This looks and reads far different from the usual vanity trivia; it doesn't sell a PoV; it may be of local/regional interest as opposed to world-wide, but I can understand how it could gravitate towwards wider notability. And as is it's well-enough written, that I doubt as good a job could be done swiftly, if it becomes world-famous. If the final decision is "delete", may I suggest that it be ported to the author's User page, so that he can archive it, before salting the earth. -- Simon Cursitor 08:13, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India hotel review[edit]

India hotel review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'll keep this short as simple, as I've bee rambling on my AFDs. Non-notable Website. My crystal ball says that in a few days there'll be a message from DumBot just underneath this one, saying I didn't list the nomination properly. Well, frankly - I'm not doing a job that a robot can do equally as well. Dangherous 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:30, 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. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Wilfried Hofmann[edit]

DeleteThis person only has 603 hits to his page. He is not a notable or famousInsert non-formatted text here person.--Sefringle 03:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Subject is a former German ambassador and held a high-ranking post in NATO. He's a published author and a well-travelled lecturer on contemporary relations between the West and the Islamic world. Here's a link from a lecture he gave at a conference at Oxford University three years ago that verifies most of the claims to notability in the article: [34]. Caknuck 16:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO with plenty of references and published works. --
  • Keep. Is this another example of "Google creep"? Why is 600 hits not enough? What is the minimal number of references required for reliability, or references for notability? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - looks like he passes WP:BIO. Additionally, a search for "Murad Wilfried Hoffmann" may be misleading. I certainly know him better as "Murad Hofmann", but I presume the article's author has a good reason for adding the middle name. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched for "Wilfried Hofmann" and found plenty of relevant links. Caknuck 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think of trying that search, but then the rationale for creating the page seems to be that he's known by both first and middle names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Murad Hofman gets some Google Scholar hits and is quoted by several notable authors according to Google books. I think it's probably enough as the raw Google count for German academics/former-diplomats is going to be relatively low compared to their importance. (For example when I create articles on jazz musicians I find that getting under a 1000 Google hits makes me worry they may not meet notability, but when I create an article on say a Nigerian author a 1000 hits is plenty)--T. Anthony 10:21, 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 17:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Language Club (University of Bahrain)[edit]

English Language Club (University of Bahrain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sure this is a group of very nice chaps but unfortunately this is WP:SPAM and non-notable according to Google which gave 28 hits this article, copies of it and the club's own website and subpages included. In other words: A big fat 0 outside of Wikipedia and their own site. MartinDK 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful information (maybe 1 or 2 sentences) to University of Bahrain. Caknuck 16:28, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enviga

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish & Richardson[edit]

Fish & Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable notability. The awards smell fishy because two of the awards are for next year: "For 2007, F&R was ranked #16 (tie) on the AveryIndex's list of the Top 25 Prestigious Firms to Work For [1], a ranking that accounts for both firm prestige and associate satisfaction. [...] For 2007, F&R was ranked #17 on the "Best 20 Law Firms to Work For" by Vault [3].". Contested prod, like some wider input. MER-C 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Gigantic and Speedy Keep, major firm ranked by Vault (company), who publishes all its rankings "for next year". Puh-lease! - crz crztalk 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very likely keep per above and about 1.4m ghits. However, I can appreciate the nominator's concerns about the article in the state it was in before the Prod. And if it is contested, process dictates in a round-about way that it appear here for wider exploration. Maybe confusing for those who work outside the law (figuratively speaking), and I probably would have done the same. The fact that another editor expressed concerns was also instrumental in the article's appearance here. Further to that, it's amazing how a Prod can improve an article (usually by the original author) to a state that is semi-respectable. Also, I don't believe the nominator entered a "vote", as stated "like some wider input". Cheers. Bubba hotep 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historic and currently very important and large law firm. --Oakshade 16:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Following the links for the awards show that they correct. Notable, historic law firm. (Added some additional info, highlighting notability - history, notable clients.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn, closed. MER-C 01:52, 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 ] 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John G. McCaskey[edit]

John G. McCaskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:BIO criteria, also WP:NOT a directory of oil company executives. Few unique ghits. Linkless apparently because he's not considered that important in context of the people or things he was involved with, such as E. W. Marland, and Marland Oil Company. Contested prod. Tubezone 13:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list of references strongly suggests that he is the subject of multiple independent non-trivial publications, and hence passes WP:BIO. The fact that he has been dead for many years doesn't detract from his notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep-as per TruthbringerToronto. Nileena joseph (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. ghits? Are you serious? Google wasn't indexing public documents between 1874 and 1924. Linkless? A two day old article being linkless? Perish the thought! Unfocused 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are plenty of people and things, even obscure ones, from that era that generate reams of Google hits. This article is linkless because the editors who wrote the articles on Marland, Marland Oil, sauerkraut, and even Ponca City, Oklahoma apparently didn't think he was important enough to mention (if there were mentions, I'd have fixed the redlinks) - except perhaps a note under Ponca City, I can't see how you'd find an excuse to shoehorn Mr. McCaskey into the other articles without getting into a lot deeper detail than a Wikipedia article normally does. The references cited are, other than the Marland biography, weak IMHO, lots of people get local paper mentions and directory mentions. BTW, speaking of Ponca City, someone should write an article on the 101 Ranch Tubezone 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on my research thus far, I expect the primary difference between this man and his contemporaries is that this gentleman died early, before he was pressured by estate tax laws to establish charities and foundations in his name to secure a legacy. Unfocused 20:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending cleanup. I'm not sure that the references listed suggest that he was the subject of the publications; in several of them he almost certainly was only mentioned and not featured as the primary subject; which would not satisfy the criterion mentioned by truthbringer. None of the references have McCaskey's name in the title or allude to the reference being primarily about him, so notability on the basis of that criterion is up in the air in my mind. Regardless, this is a substantive article that has at least made significant inroads to establishing notability of its subject within the article. It badly needs cleanup to look more encyclopedic and less like a personal essay. Hopefully, the original editor comes back around to address these concerns, because no one other editors are around that really seem to know anything about this guy. JGardner 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Like JGardner I'm unsure of his notability. The only mention I find in the NY Times is a tangential one in a report of a Senate Hearing (NYT: 4/11/1924 p1 [after his death]) -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:20, 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 Merge to Avi Weiss (already done). How the material is handled there is another question all by itself, but outside the scope of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Orthodoxy[edit]

Open Orthodoxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This movement does not exist. It's the brainchild of one rabbi in one synagogue in the Bronx, NY. There is no media or scholarly coverage of this movement outside of the movement itself, which must, of course, be excluded. Besides, not having any clear boundaries between orthodox, modern orthodox, open orthodox (go figure...) this article serves as an unhelpful, unmergable vehicle for the promotion of the religious musings of Rabbi Weiss and/or creator user:Shirahadasha. Which is good, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To reiterate, I don't think merging this anywhere is a good idea. The Rabbi is borderline notable, but his ideas don't belong here. WP:NOT for things invented in synagogue one day. Delete. - crz crztalk 13:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 1: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2: All of this article's contents had actually already been merged [35] into the Rabbi Avi Weiss article and the page redirected [36] before this vote was called for. The revert was restored [37] and thus this vote arose. IZAK 09:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Avi Weiss, no merge for reasons given in the nomination. Otherwise, delete. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete For now, I think we can delete it, but Avi Weiss is not NN, he is a very controversial political activist and rabbi, and YCT (or CT, if you want) is his brainchild. It might take years to see how it pans out. After all, by definition, Open and Orthodoxy don't meet. Yossiea 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No media coverage? This doesn't qualify as media coverage? Will dig up some more. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Also, FYI, the article describes a "philosophy", not a "movement" and certainly not a "religion". The question is whether the thing as it is meets the standard criteria -- WP:N, WP:V, and sufficient content to write a stand-alone article. The question is not whether it meets criteria for something the article doesn't claim it to be -- "movement", "religion", etc. -- and certainly not whether or not it's something one agrees with. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shirahadasha, just to be clear, are you voting for keep? Valley2city 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep' Firstly, this article meets the standard criteria in terms of WP:N, WP:V, and sufficient material for a stand-alone article. Secondly, the nomination raises a red herring -- it says there is no evidence of the existence of a "movement". But the article describes it as a philosophy, not a movement. And philosophies are often associated with their founding philosophers, so long as the philosophies are themselves independently notable. As additional evidence of more widespread use in addition to the press coverage, see also e.g. [38], [39], [40], [41]. This has attracted enough attention and followers to be legitimately more than something specific to Avi Weiss and to be an approach a substantial number of individuals and congregations subscribe to. --Shirahadasha 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This process has resulted in the development of open orthodoxy whereby adherents to halakhah (Jewish law) re-engage both with secular studies, Jews of all denominations and global issues. This movement has its own rabbinic school in New York, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Some within this movement have experimented with orthodox egalitarianism where gender equality solutions are found through halakhah. This has led to women taking on more leadership roles. Others in this movement are increasingly re-engaging with social justice issues from a halakhic point of view." No. This is trivial to support an article on a new religion. Any books written on it by anyone outside the movement? - crz crztalk 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect into Avi Weiss and keep all the material in the Open Orthodoxy article as part of Avi Weiss. Rabbi Weiss is very notable and Open Orthoodxy is notable but the ideology is entirely by one person, one author, and one director Avi Weiss. If, and when, they produce other authors and thinkers then it should become its own article. Or if they hold a convention that brings all the fellow travelers of ideology under one tent, then it is notable as Open Orthoodxy. Or when they form their own Rabbinical association. Right now, it is still a one person show. YCT has not produced any notable graduates yet. The movement does indeed exist, and is notable, but is entirely STILL linked to one single person. --Jayrav 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find crz much too biased on this one, using inflamitory language of "new relgion" givng his owe definitions of Orthodoxy. Yes, Open Orthodoxy is being discussed at the GA as we type, and is regualrly featured in the Federation Jewish papers. It is certainly more notable and less advocacy than the many many kiruv outreach rabbis who have pages on WIKI. They only have press coverage when they buy ads or put out their own self promotion. --Jayrav 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to avi weiss. a movement is not one person or one institution. Jon513 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though it is a fledgling movement in Judaism, it is developing. Yeshivat Chovevei Torah only started ordaining people a few years ago, give it time. I know rabbis from this movement I also know that many Modern Orthodox disparage them and the movement. It is distinct from Modern Orthodoxy and other Jewish movements, and is distinct from its creator, Rabbi Avi Weiss. It deserves its own page. I, by the way, am not part of the Open Orthodoxy movement just so you don't think there is a POV motivation here. Valley2city 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, crz, do you feel you are making an unbiased assertion here? Do you have something against the article or do you have something against Open Orthodoxy? I'm curious for comment. Valley2city 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hehe, no, I've never heard of it. Besides, not being modern orthodox, I am not exposed to the disparagement of the movement. I've never heard of it. Asserting that it's a distinct movement does not make it so. That YCT has only started ordaining people - give it a few year - is a good argument for deletion. - crz crztalk 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Avi Weiss. It appears that the merge has already been completed. I agree with others that "Open Orthodoxy" is an idea of Rabbi Weiss and has not gained wider acknowledgment in the Jewish community. 129.98.212.72 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Avi Weiss. Alternatively, Merge as (as yet unlabeled) stream of Modern Orthodoxy. There is nothing inherent in Open Orthodoxy that distinguishes it from classical Modern Orthodoxy. It is a movement characterized by resistance to Charedization, and hardly has a philosophy of its own. In fact, I suspect that outside the major Jewish population centers (i.e. New York), most Modern Orthodox would fall into the Open Orthodox category. --Kotzker 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and merge reminents with Rabbi Weiss. As of now, this movement does not exist. Chavatshimshon 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Avi Weiss, with short mention on Modern Orthodoxy. Also merge Yeshivat Chovevei Torah with Avi Weiss. Little in either article to clearly delineate this one-man-show from actual leftish Modern Orthodoxy (e.g. Emanuel Rackman, Norman Lamm). Actual numbers of this "movement" cannot be stated with accuracy. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is little to disntinguish most members of the Edah Charadis from each other, and there is nothing to seperate them from their schools. If you dont know the distinctions between the Rabbis then do not comment. Shall we determine Charedi Rabbi by the knowledge of their uniqueness among Modern Orthodox? Maybe we should collapse all Chardi Rabbis into the Chasam SOfer or Satmar Rov? I am not connected to Open Orthodoxy or its school but leave the debate to those for whom the distinctions matter. --Jayrav 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely you're joking, Jayrav? I am not disagreeing that Avi Weiss may be a visionary of Modern Orthodoxy, but no member of the Edah Chareidis claims to have started a new Jewish movement. Obviously all Charedi rabbis deserve their own articles like Avi Weiss does, and some even deserve special pages on their philosophy (e.g. Torah im Derech Eretz, which is of enormous religious & social significance and 200 years older than Open Orthodoxy). JFW | T@lk 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to I-don't-care-where. The information in the article (not necessarily all of it, but most) is interesting and useful and should not be deleted. But "Open Orthodoxy" is a term I've never heard outside of this discussion, and it should not be its own article until it has reached an appreciable and distinct identity. Following that same logic, I disagree with JFW's suggestion to merge Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as well. It is undoubtedly a distinct and real educational institution, and deserves its own article no less than any other school. --Keeves 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Avi Weiss, certainly. I disagree with several points made by some editors, though. Open Orthodoxy does exist, and it is a unique movement. I imagine that it will become more notable as time passes, but as of yet it is not. A remark for Dr. Wolff - I am surprised that you use Norman Lamm as a paradigm of "leftish" Modern Orthodoxy. While Haredi he is not, R' Lamm is well known as the voice of Centrist Orthodoxy, which distances itself hashkafically from the left-leaning tendencies of people like Avi Weiss. --DLandTALK 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Avi Weiss article as had previously done [42], seems obvious to me, but Shirahadasha wanted a vote. My reasons remain the same, and I will repeat them here again because they apply to this vote: the article cannot stand alone otherwise it would be deleted as a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, because "Open Orthodoxy" is Weiss's own very recent creation and it does not have any recognition from anyone within the broader world of Orthodoxy, and thus Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideologies. All the material belongs with the Avi Weiss article as it's Weiss's baby, and is not a noted universal movement. IZAK 09:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge How many thousands of Jews are "open Orthodox"? Chesdovi 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect It almost seems like ..Made up in school in one day --ArmadilloFromHell 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inaccurate reason for nomination for deletion. Masterhomer 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that a merge and redirect is in order; the delete votes strike me as odd: do these mean that some people belive that none of this material belongs in the article on Weiss and that this term should not redirect to that article? - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that a lot of people have biases against Open Orthodoxy that they cannot see beyond POV which is why they are pushing for a delete and not even a merge. It's unfortunate. Valley2city 21:05, 20 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 a {{db-copyvio}} of a Myspace page about a non-notable film. (aeropagitica) 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales Of Mavis[edit]

See also Jolly Mavis (AfD discussion) and Special:Contributions/Cecil Draygon.

According to this edit, the James Butler (talk · contribs) who created, and after it was deleted re-created, this article is the James Butler who wrote these purported films. Unsurprisingly, the content of this article, which is blatant advertising, is a word-for-word duplicate of the advertisement for these movies on the MySpace page, and is only missing the part at the end that gives the price. It appears that this article is a mis-use of Wikipedia as an advertising billboard to advertise some amateur movies. There's no way to write an encyclopaedia article about these movies, because outside of the MySpace page, there's nothing written about them at all, anywhere. Indeed, we have no evidence that they even exist in the first place. (There's no reason to believe that what is written about a subject, on a web page created by the authors and vendors of the subject, is true. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the problems with people writing about themselves, their achievements, and what they are trying to sell to others.) Wikipedia is not a free web host, nor an advertising billboard. Uncle G 13:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am proud of what we have created and wanted to log it for the future. I am not trying to sell the story at all. There is nowhere on the entire article that refers to purchasing the trilogy. I have created this through demand and love for the story. This is an encyclopaedia if nobody searches for the tales of mavis then no one will see it. It's not a pop up. This is not about money or promoting. James Butler 14:12, 15 November 2006

Note that I nominated sister article Jolly Mavis for deletion after James Butler removed my speedy tags. I think this article should be Speedy Deleted per G11 and protected. Amists talk • contribs 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nomination. Doesn't matter what your plans are. Wikipedia is not a free webhost nor is it a billboard. MartinDK 14:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and about half a dozen other things I can think of: it's a copyvio as a copy of a MySpace page, WP:NOTE, WP:COI, I could go on. Seems like everyone who spams WP with this kind of stuff claims they're just doing it as a fan, IOW, see WP:MEAT. Tubezone 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. --Folantin 15:00, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Exchange[edit]

Impossible Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rambling WP:OR. Not much else to say on this one. MartinDK 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update According to information on the talk page it is copyright infringement. Can someone more familiar with the speedy delete criterias put it up for deletion? MartinDK 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only a part was copyvio, and that was removed. -Amarkov blahedits 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh ok thank you for clearing that up. MartinDK 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. What can I do about the twenty seconds I lost reading this nonsense? OfficeGirl 22:13, 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 - Yomanganitalk 01:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat in a cone[edit]

Was tempted to speedy G1, but bringing here to be on the safe side. 32 Ghits. Amists talk • contribs 14:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Rambling incoherent nonsense. MartinDK 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A horribly confused dog's dinner of an article. --Folantin 14:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. There are Ghits for "meat on a cone" because gyro meat is often supplied to restaurants in a cone shape. It's not what this guy is talking about. The editor who made the article, JørgenGrybvang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also vandalized the article Meat. --Charlene 15:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got a giggle out of this WP:BOLLOCKS. Should have been posted to uncyclopedia. JGardner 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WTF?!? I did like the concept of meat in a cone being a "center of trade" in the Middle Ages. I can just imagine Viking longship pulling up to dock against a giant gyro. Caknuck 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll be paying for my new keyboard? --Charlene 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS but still it's an article worthy of WP:BJAODN. --SunStar Net 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's WP:OR as, apparently, "Meat in a Cone" was a joke cut from a Seinfeld episode and has no real-world analogue. There are some really hilarious lines in this article, such as "A hamburger is a cone filled with meat" and "In the Middle Ages, Meat in a Cone was an important center of trade between the Slavic and European merchants." I mean, this is better Uncyclopedia material than you usually see in Uncyclopedia. --Hyperbole 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A (rather dumb) reference to a joke in There's Something About Mary. Wavy G 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bad joke; rest in pieces. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's meat in a cone. So what? .V. 23:38, 20 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 Plain White T's - Yomanganitalk 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There Delilah[edit]

  • Fails WP:SINGLE and should if not deleted be merged as proposed on the article MartinDK 14:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but note that the band in question are notable, in fact they're on a major label, as is this release. Still fails WP:SINGLE however Amists talk • contribs 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to band article. No real encyclopaedic content to be merged. The JPStalk to me 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I can see a lot of people looking up this particular song, but the content of this article is frivolous at best.--DaveyE 05:54, 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 wasKeep.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards[edit]

Star Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like an award show run by a TV broadcaster for people who work for that same company. Google hardly returns anything once you've filtered out the company's own webpages (what remains are news snippets and similar).

I am also nominating the following: Star Awards 1995, Star Awards 1997, Star Awards 1998, Star Awards 1999, Star Awards 2000, and Star Awards 2003 because they redirect to Star Awards. And Star Awards 2001, Star Awards 2002, Star Awards 2004, Star Awards 2005, and Star Awards 2006 because they contain a subset of the information in Star Awards. --Lijnema 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Star Awards has an article for the fact that it is the most prominent award in the Singaporean mass entertainment arena. That it is basically a "self-rewarding" award does little to dent its avid following and the buzz it generates amongst the masses. May I just point out that "Star Awards" itself may not garner plenty of sources online, because it is actually the English name of an award for Chinese-language productions.--Huaiwei 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except orphaned redirects. Notable event in the country. Google in English returns more than 50,000 hits including many press reports, Googling the Chinese title returns over 79,000 hits. --Vsion 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as above, and it is a rather huge event in Singapore.le petit vagabond 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Keep the main article if it is actually a major event. However, the statistics tables should be dropped per WP:NOT. DB (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the subarticles (individual years). They are just redirects to the main article. If info is added about individual years, it can all go in the main article. DB (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as major Singapore award event by dominant Singapore media company but delete all the subarticles as per DB above. There's gotta be a better, more visually friendly way of arranging data than the current charts too, but I'll leave that the article editors Bwithh 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main. I see no problem with the redirects, especially if there's a possibility of more detailed articles down the line. 23skidoo 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Star Awards is like the Emmy of Singapore. It is the highest category of television awards in the country, and has been a very popular event in the Chinese television scene. There are more hits in Chinese as the name is in Chinese not English. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still think (if the final verdict is keep, which is looks like now) that it at least needs some external sources, and either move all results to the main, or the individual years, seems to be doule in some places now. --Lijnema
    • Comment I concur that the current presentation does look unweldy, and I appeal for ideas on how to better present the facts. Keeping individual articles for each year's awards was one way to keep the information sanely manageable, so perhaps we may wish to keep the non-redirect ones for now.--Huaiwei 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It might be a good idea to remove the table from Star Awards and keep information about winners on the individual pages, and have the main page just contain text about the awards, but not the winners (perhaps just naming a few who've won a lot)? --Lijnema 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The awards seem well-known enough to warrant this article. The individual articles per year may be unneccessary, but any important information could be included in the main article. S-man64 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Terence Ong and others, WP:BIAS would apply here as well I would think. RFerreira 05:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this is a very important event for Singapore's entertainment circle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 11:41, 20 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, but severely prune back the article and remove cruft, which I will now do. Herostratus 14:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Dubai[edit]

Tourism in Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is definitely not the worst article in Wikipedia, and it contains some useful information. However, it is written in the style of a travel guide, and would thus be more appropriated for Wikitravel. I don't know the exact criteria, but the general idea is that Wikipedia collects objective information without providing how-to guides for travelers. YechielMan 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We can't transwiki this content because Wikitravel content is subject to a different license than Wikipedia content. I agree that the article as it stands does contain useful information even if it isn't suitable for this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and slash and burn non-encyclopedic content (which will leave us with only a stub, but that's OK). I'm going to do a little slashing-and-burning right now, in fact. "Tourism in X" is an important and encyclopedic component of our coverage of any geographic area X; see for example Category:Tourism by country. There should be an article at this location, and therefore deleting the current version serves no particular purpose; far better that we keep it in the revision history to show what does and doesn't belong in such an article. -- Visviva 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and burninate inappropriate content per Visviva (although AfD is not cleanup). Sandstein 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: one would expect some statistics or trends rather than info where to buy "original" jewelry. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 19 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, although if reliable sources can be found that demonstrate "the circumstances being evaluated in legal, land use, and commercial development circles" such that this becomes a notable incident, this deletion doesn't prejudice against a recreation with those sources. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbuck Township Walmart Landslide[edit]

Kilbuck Township Walmart Landslide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOT soapbox. Local accident with wider notability not established, anti-Walmart POV pushing, recentism. --user:Qviri 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiAmericanLocalNews. Geez, maybe we should have articles on every time the river rises in Winnipeg. --Charlene 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this time? Or this time? :) Caknuck 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the other 34 times it's risen since 1997. --Charlene 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I wouldn't even vote keep if this was kilbucktownshipwiki.org. --Aaron 16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. This is in effort to bring in more local views, although the list itself seems just about dead. --user:Qviri 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This parallels an incident in England where a supermarker development successfully blocked a main rail rine, when the cut+cover tunnel collapsed. A structural engineer might be abel to say whether there's mileage in an article about supermarkets destroying local transport links, but I'd say this is a news-issue, not a famous landslide -- Simon Cursitor 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it already is famous. I acknowledge the perspectives above, and that the entry may need revision. However, with respect to those reviewers, a superficial glance will grossly underestimate the severity and importance of this event. I live hundreds of miles/several states distant, but have noted the circumstances being evaluated in legal, land use, and commercial development circles both online and offline (not to mention among pro- and anti- Wal-Mart and community advocates). The developer aggressively sought and received waivers of various local zoning requirements over many months. As a direct result, some 500,000 cubic yards of stone and soil collapsed onto a major state thoroughfare, closing it for nearly two weeks -- along with high-volume tracks of Norfolk Southern. Had the collapse occurred only a few months later -- say, during the development's grand opening, with dignitaries and possibly thousands of citizens on site -- its Wikipedia footprint might have rivaled that of the 9/11 events in New York. As a legal, land use, and engineering point of reference, we can only hope the Kilbruck slide will have few equals in the coming century. Attorneys, planning professionals, elected officials, and others in growing numbers will be searching for context. That's how I arrived here today! Gstock 15:58, 20 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 and redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Drink[edit]

Orange Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable band, would seem to fail WP:MUSIC. Main contributor is Drink666 whose contrtibutions are mainly limited to the creation of the band article and its independent record label. Not to be confused with another band. Scoo 17:15, 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 Speedy Delete. A7. utcursch | talk 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh prabhu[edit]

Rajesh prabhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Violates WP:BIO, probable vanity piece; non-notable, contested speedy delete, unregistered user, possibly author. 2nd identical page will also be nominated SkierRMH 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this Good Faith work  Doctor Bruno  20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete also leave note on author's talk page suggesting that they read and understand WP:BIO before making further edits. Good faith, meaning intent to do the right thing, is not really possible when clearly so little has been done to find out what the right thing is. This is the very definition of A7. •Elomis• 10:42, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock Records[edit]

Hemlock Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable, linked with Orange Drink, a google search will net roughly 600 hits. Looks like a vanity article which fail WP:MUSIC. Scoo 17:24, 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 No consensus, so kept by default. Yomanganitalk 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The River Company[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy, but doesn't seem to me to meet any of the criteria, so I brought the article here to gauge consensus. Looks to me like it might meet criteria 1.5 and 1.7 of WP:MUSIC. --Slowking Man 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it clearly meets at least criteria 1.5 with links to two prominent Mississippi papers listed on the page and probably 1.7 due to their activity and success in their community WP:MUSIC. --User:anonymous 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I attended school with the members of the band and live in Ocean Springs, where they are all from. They are very active in the community. I served with the members on the board to create an annual music festival in Ocean Springs. Proof of the festival's existence can be found here: http://festival.oceanspringsmusic.com/. The band's official website is: http://therivercompany.oceanspringsmusic.com/. There's no reason whatsoever for this article to be deleted as they are clearly very notable, if only in Mississippi. Futhermore, The River Company has a large fan base located across the entire Gulf Coast and everything in the article is fact. Michael.m.winters 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an article of red links with no indication of getting near to meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's only an article with so many red links because everyone deletes any sort of new information(as clearly indicated by this attempt)... And it clearly does meet at the very least criteria 1.5 of WP:MUSIC, the section which very clearly states, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band... etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (5) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)" with links to references in several reputable newspapers. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, not supressing it. Garyleeweinrib 3:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I do not believe two articles constitutes multiple or several in this case. Nuttah68 08:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain, How many do you feel constitutes 'multiple?' Also, there are articles that are not available on the internet any longer without paying for an archival subscription. Therefore providing links to these in the external links section would not be appropriate. Garyleeweinrib 21:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It varies, but for a band offering nothing else that gets even close to meeting WP:MUSIC, a fair few and definitely more than two. Nuttah68 12:58, 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, W.marsh 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment :: The "too many red-links" argument is weak, since this can be solved by removing some of the links, until the linked subjects themselves become notable. Just because an article links to non-notable things doesn't mean it is itself non-notable. If you disagree, let me have a respectable article in sandbox-mode for 1 day: I'll fill it wth red-links, and you can AfD the result, and see what people think. -- Simon Cursitor 08:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (who klnows nothing about the band)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twinfield[edit]

Twinfield (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Does not meet WP:Corp. Not notable. Ad. Sleepyhead 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. This includes "Twinfield currently claims to be the no. 1 in online accounting in Europe and the company states that it has 20,000 subscribers in 20 countries." (emphasis mine). So tagged. MER-C 13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Per above comments. Chris Kreider 13:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is no more than a stub, and the claims should be investigated, but Twinfield is an up and coming online accounting package that has received press in IT and Financial circles. IT Week, one of the UK's premier IT newspapers, did an article on it in their print issue a few months ago, and they have an online article in which it is mentioned on more than one occasion. The Irish Internet Association ran an article on it. It has been mentioned on SME Blog, a well known site for help for small and medium businesses. Financial Director, the UK's leading magazine for, well, Financial Directors in Industry has talked about it several times. It has started to be common enough that some accounting and financial positions being advertised are asking for Twinfield experience (not many, but it is happening). I confess the article as it stands needs work, a lot of work, but the company and software is notable. Ben W Bell talk 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not like other booster/vanity/advertising pages, but the claim is unverified and it lacks the information of a proper corp page. If the claim was properly sourced or removed and the page re-done to approximating the standard, I'd support retention. Robovski 00:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've kinda rewrote the article to be based more on the software package than the corporation (as the corp is callled Twinfield International). I'm never very good with these kind of articles, so if someone could look over it. I've also added one of the references shown above. Ben W Bell talk 07:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- NN, NPOV. Pete Fenelon 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the article needs a tidy I agree but it's not non-notable. Several references can be found stating it's the leading online financial accounting solution in Europe with currently up to 20,000 (depending on source and date of source) subscribers. If these are true, and they are mentioned in several different sources including many prestigious titles in the industry area, how can it be non-notable? Just because you haven't heard of something or know nothing about it doesn't mean it's non-notable. I knew practically nothing about the product, other than it existed, but have done some searching and it is definitely notable. Ben W Bell talk 07:25, 13 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, W.marsh 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - may be notable but article reads like an advertisement. If it had some serious cleanup then it could stay, otherwise, send it the way of the spam. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it definitely asserts notability, and the sources seem to verify that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete without prejudice, the articles only sources are a blog, the website of the company, and a press release. I'd have no problem with a well-sourced article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Quick comment, just because the website SME Blog happens to have the word blog in its title doesn't automatically put it in the same league as other "blogs", it's actually a professional Small and Medium Enterprise orientated news and resource site that happens to use the word blog as it is more modern. In fact the site has won a pretigious award, Accountancy Age awarded it "Best use of internet" for it's benefits to the SME community. Just because it contains the word blog doesn't immediately dismiss it as a valid source. I would post many more supporting references but unfortunately the articles from IT Week, the ones in various accountancy and financial magazines and such only appeared in paper format, not something that can be linked from here. Ben W Bell talk 07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A quick comment: if I understand correctly, you may cite offline sources on Wikipedia to support claims on the article. Just use an appropriate template, such as {{cite}}. The key here is verifiability, not whether it is actually verified by individual editors. Please add them in asap. --Pkchan 11:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would love to, unfortunately as of last week I'm now unemployed (redundancy, was quite happy about it) and as a result no longer have access to the back issues of these magazines that I once had. If someone else can supply them then we'd all be greatful. Ben W Bell talk 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ben W. Bell. SME Blog isn't really a blog as noted, Accountancy Age repeatedly plugs Twinfield and others as the death-knell of the spreadsheet and the Next Big Thing. Company won an award from the Ministerie van Economische Zaken. All in all, seems a notable enough ASP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by mentions by outside sources and award by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. --Pkchan 11:29, 19 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Way (Game)[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:SOFT, being another one of these RPG Maker-made games. Prod removed without comment; still no sources of claim of notability. Marasmusine 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SOFT. NN game. --Czj 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tactical nuke per nom. Notability not established. So many words, so few sources. MartinDK 17:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hobbyist games. — brighterorange (talk) 20:12, 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 Speedily deleted as a nonsense article. (aeropagitica) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nunnery of St Beryl[edit]

The Nunnery of St Beryl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be nonsense; no supporting references found. JFreeman (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Hoax article. Google bring 0 none WP hits Valoem talk 18:02, 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 Speedily deleted as a nonsense fake schoolboy bio, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Slaughter[edit]

Colin Slaughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Believe this was created by the subject himself. For more info, also see Sandpoint High School Ebyabe 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Google returns a big fat 0 [43]. Possible hoax. MartinDK 18:14, 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. Applicable policy here is Wikipedia is not a travel guide - this trumps 'but I like it'. Proto::type 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Kuala Lumpur[edit]

Tourism in Kuala Lumpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page holds nothing more than an advertisement for Kuala Lumpur. I did a check, and there does not exist a page of tourism in Paris or other major cities. In addition, it fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. le petit vagabond 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikitravel. hateless 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, doesn't look like Wikitravel is a suitable transwiki target. In this case, weak delete works for me, unless there is a suitable transwiki target available. hateless 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not an advertisement and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is very nicely organized, well focused, beautifully presented, encyclopedic information. Fg2 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + it is just listcruft. MartinDK 12:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs organising, formating, and a introductory section. --Vsion 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Requires organizing.Marcusaffleck 12:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start from a clean table. This advertisement cannot be turned into a proper article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either, it contains good information. but if you guys find it too 'ad-like' i guess the second best is to Wikitravel Kuala Lumpur. As far as I am concern, I personally would like to keep it there.Zack2007 06:36, 19 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, including the inveterate link spamming. ~ trialsanderrors 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet[edit]

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a vanity article of a non-notable author who is part of a "walled garden of cruft". This author's name was previously made into a Category which was subsequently deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Also nominating:

The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2
The New Way, Volume 3
The Gnostic Circle
The Magical Carousel
Gnostic circle
Trivikrama

Reference should also be made to AfD discussions on:

Matrimandir Action Committee (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrimandir Action Committee)
The New Way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Way)
Aeon Center for Cosmology (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Center for Cosmology)
Aeon Group (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeon Group)

OfficeGirl 18:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for the main article. A "Norelli-Bachelet" search on Amazon reveals that she has published several books and, more significantly, she is quoted by several other authors. Her 670 Google hits aren't many but appear diversified. She seems to be well-established in her small niche within Integral yoga. The critical remarks about her in The Mother rather enhance her case. Stammer 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all:
  • Although a published author, Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO's standard of "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". I don't think that mere quotes (of which we have no sources) qualify as reviews, and another Wikipedia article can hardly be a reliable source for notability purposes.
  • Her books are non-notable by extension. Since the articles are mostly (copyvio?) tables of content, if Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet is kept, they should be merged into her article.
  • Trivikrama may be an encyclopedic subject and worth an article at some point, but right now it's just primary sources (that don't belong on Wikipedia) mixed with WP:OR and nonnotable Norelli-Bachelet esotericism.
  • Of course, the articles also are poorly sourced, consist practically only of WP:POV esoteric mumbo-jumbo, do not bother to make a claim to notability (in words that those of us still in this sphere can understand), and are generally best characterised as pieces of advertising. Sandstein 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and vanispam-cruft or whatever it's called --AW 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the articles on the books per WP:OR; keep article on the author. The references given are all self-references, and thus fail WP:RS. Aside from books which have no Amazon ranking at all, I have yet to see modern books by an author generally this far below the bar of notability. Most of this lot have rankings waaaay below 1millionth, which gives me no doubt of their notability (or lack thereof). Nevertheless, I have reservations about deleting the article on the author, as her books do have some minimal reference value witness the copies in the Library of Congress, among other places. Ohconfucius 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the LOC collect basically everything published in the US? Sandstein 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Sandstein. The LOC is useful for checking for hoaxes. If we cannot find a book there, we can assume it is not published in the US. But the mere existence of the book means very little. Leibniz 13:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Sandstein. --Pjacobi 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Sandstein. Leibniz 12:52, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overprotective[edit]

This is an essay or opinion piece, not an encyclopedic article. It is unverified, unsourced original research. The term "overprotective" is not capable of anything other than a dicdef; however, the transwiki tag has been removed without addressing the problem, other than by expanding this essay with more unverified unsourced opinion. Agent 86 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pure original essay. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is educational and informative and it will help people understand victims of overprotective parents/caregivers. GVnayR 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is usual to say that you are the author of the article when you comment in these discussions. Robovski 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the user who created the article. The talk page of this user reveals that he or she has been warned multiple times about creating "joke" articles and other inappropriate material on Wikipedia and has been previously blocked. No effort is being made by this user to learn the correct way to truly contribute to the encyclopedia. In light of that history, this article appears to be part of the pattern of "joke articles." Violates WP:POINT. Also original research. OfficeGirl 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86 and OfficeGirl. hateless 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom & officegirl SkierRMH 09:02, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead fictional characters[edit]

List without end; writing the death toll of all fiction ever has to be a useful application of Up arrow notation; no usefulness of inclusion for any sort of research due to its indiscriminate nature. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --AW 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pitfully incomplete now (where's Jacob Marley?), and if actually filled would stand a chance of being the largest article in Wikipedia. A list of fictional works without a dead character would probably be shorter. Absolutely unmaintainable. Fan-1967 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is an impossible list to complete. VegaDark 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They forgot Flattop and all the other bad guys who faced Dick Tracy. Existing article is Bondcentric and Hamletcentric. Edison 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - good grief, how many dead fictional characters would there be? 1000,000+? Sorry, but it has to go. Dead fictional characters should listed, if at all, in the respective pages for that work of fiction. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintaiable, uncontrolable. As stated above, there would be no end to this list - and why would this be useful anyway? Robovski 05:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rambling listcruft. MartinDK 06:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (Besides, almost all fictional characters are dead, for the same reason that most people are dead. ) wikipediatrix 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Due to the endless number of "people" who fit within the topic, this page is going to be a collection of random dead fictional people remembered one day. --Darkprincealain 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete listcruft, and it doesn't include my favorite characters like Bill Clinton, George Bush and -spoiler warning- Harry Potter. SkierRMH 09:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but perhaps save the section on films where everyone dies. --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 17:11, 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 as a redirect, nomination withdrawn after merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of Motherland Party[edit]

Merged with Motherland Party (Turkey), doesn't need its own article AW 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as a merged article. This doesn't need AfD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, thanks. Brain fart by me. Can I just remove the AFD stuff, or do I have to wait? --AW 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you can withdraw this as nom. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw this. --AW 20:40, 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 - Yomanganitalk 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCheat[edit]

Non-notable wiki created in the past couple weeks. No claims to notability and fails WP:WEB. PROD was removed by a user who wanted this discussed here. Wickethewok 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please, produce a reference to a rule (where in WP:SPAM or WP:WEB), and I will gladly give up my defense. I'm not familiar with 'per nom', sorry, is it a spelling mistake or wikipedia lingo, Cheers Darklordabc 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Per nom" means "with regards to the nominator's argument" basically. It does not pass WP:WEB because it does not meet either of the three criteria:
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

The general rule is that websites must meet one of these. Wickethewok 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It fails per WP:SPAM because I have reasons to believe it was created by the owner of the website. You are free to counter that argument. MartinDK 19:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but only because it clearly fails WP:WEB. I actually think the project is a really great idea, and I'm kind of surprised that a wiki devoted to vg cheats didn't exist until now. Good luck to the page's creator! →Bobby← 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikicheat does not meet the criteria of wikipedia as you have proved Wickethewok, so delete as you please. It seems unusual to offer me a chance to counter your argument during a debate MartinDk, thats assumed, unless your intentions were to set me up in a trap. So just for the fun of it, what was your reasons. Darklordabc 19:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am saying that because of the fact that the front page of your wiki was created on November 14 according to your wiki and this article was created on November 15 by you. Without advertisement that is an incredible short time from the launch until you not only create the article but also has time to research it. Also, you appear here [44] editing your wiki just minutes after it was created. Sorry but you failed to assume good faith so I had to tell you all this despite the fact that I did not want to discourage you at all. best of luck with it. MartinDK 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was just browsing your wiki and not only is it a great idea but I can tell that a fair amount of work has already been put into it. Also it is a great example of how to avoid gamecruft here on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia gets millions of visitors and we have to be strict about these policies even when our hearts tell us otherwise. Not because of you but because of the many many sites that will argue against their own justified exclusion. MartinDK 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos MartinDK, your a competent admin, I'm confused when by you saying I failed to assume good faith (I am aware it is a wikipedia principle and I all assumed you were all well intentioned), so I don't quite know how to reply to it. Darklordabc 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment hi hi thank you but I am no admin. That requires a lot more time and experience than I got. You can read about assuming good faith here. You thought I was setting you up, that was not my intention at all. But nevermind any of that.Cheers and happy editing, MartinDK 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although Wikicheat is a really great idea and has great potential to grow into a well-known resource for game players, it hasn't been around long enough to become notable. In the future I hope that it will grow to a prominent stature. When that happens it will be appropriate to make a Wikipedia article about it. But it needs more time. It's not ready to be in an encyclopedia yet. Good luck to the people at Wikicheat and all the best. OfficeGirl 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belongs in Wikicities, not here. If it qualifies there, I can see merit in a single out-bound reference, in an article on dedicated sources for video-cheats. If it doesn't, I'd say bury it. Either way, I can't see substantiation for a full article on the main ~paedia -- Simon Cursitor 08:41, 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 - Yomanganitalk 10:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enyahs[edit]

This could either be a hoax or a prank, like the Edmargatus article. No citations or references. Tito Pao 18:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-- unsourced nonsense, looks like a hoax, walks like a hoax, talks like a hoax...probably something soneone made up in school one day. OfficeGirl 21:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Utter fluff. Robovski 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and perhaps talk to to the originator. I note that, increasingly, the posting of one dodgy article is taken as justification for a trawl through a contributor's entire back history with a view of AfD-ing everything they've ever initiated. -- Simon Cursitor 08:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you show this article to any Filipino, the contents itself would speak for itself; "Lady Etel Buba" alludes to the screen name of local actress Ethel Booba, while "Datu Mejoputiputi" alludes to the brand name of a vinegar (Datu Puti) in the Philippines ("mejoputiputi" reads like "medyo puti-puti" which, translated from Tagalog to English, means "slightly white/pale"). In other words, patent nonsense. In addition, the words "enyahs" and "edmargatus" does not appear, nor is it known, in any text book that refers to Philippine mythology. --- Tito Pao 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Patent nonsense specifically excludes hoaxes. Patent nonsense is content that is irredemably incomprehensible, not content that is merely false. Uncle G 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom.--Darkprincealain 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so famous that "Enyahs Fajutagana" gets all of 0 ghits. SkierRMH 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The article makes me laugh lol. --Howard the Duck 12:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hoax, delete speedily. --SunStar Net 12:07, 19 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 (A7).--Húsönd 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N'neka Hite[edit]

N'neka Hite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person does not meet the notability guidelines Jvhertum 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Completely unsourced vanity page and even the unsubstantiated claims do not meet WP:BIO. JGardner 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per the above. Clearly fails WP:BIO. If it walks like a duck.... MartinDK 20:20, 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 Speedied. Tawker 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter cramp[edit]

Peter cramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unblanked version

The page is mostly nonsense. The subject appears, disregarding the nonsense, to be non-notable. Prod tag has been removed by article's creator. FisherQueen 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Only just avoids speedy deletion.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per the reasons above. Also, if a high school teacher named Peter Cramp truly exists, he might not be pleased to find out that WP has an entry for him containing many lies. →Bobby← 19:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This person does exist and has published several of the books listed on the page. The body of the article is not only nonsense, but borderline libel. JGardner 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • peter cramp is real, and he loves his wikipedia page as all of it is blatantly true—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.68.135 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per the above arguments. If nothing else this is legal trouble waiting to happen. MartinDK 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concerns, I have blanked the article. Melchoir 20:50, 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 Delete (G12) as clear copyvio from here.--Húsönd 21:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astarus[edit]

Astarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Band; unencyclopedic Inhumer 19:09, 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. El_C 13:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timar[edit]

Timar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. From the opening -This essay aims to outline- right through the numerous opinions until we reach the closing -Written by Deniz Gencturk- this is pure original research Nuttah68 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rewrite, wikify, and cite sources properly. This is a research paper, but it's not WP:OR. It did not make up the term "timar"; it cites 9 (non-English, albeit) secondary sources. It appears that this is a previously-known term for this form of land tenure. Mishatx 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From WP:OR, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. This isn't original research as somebody just copy-pasted their term paper (which includes, assumably, reliable sources) and called it an article. Also, the article as it is presently was recently edited to include Mr. Gencturk's homework assignment; look at the history and you'll find a much briefer and more encyclopedic description of Timar. I'm reverting the page to that version until the additional information added can be appropriately reworded and wikified. JGardner 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep now that the term-paper side of things has been deleted. The term is (as other users have pointed out) an accurate one and one which is often used for the land tenure system of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, a longer article that isn't a term paper would be just lovely, but this version is a good start. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Don't understand this nomination. Subject of obvious historical importance, and if someone adds some unsourced statements or original research, that can be reverted or cleaned up. Exists in other-language Wikipedias (German, a small stub in French, a largish article in Turkish obviously). Also many articles link here; check for instance Timariot, or Military of the Ottoman Empire. --Gabriel Knight 01:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In it's current form, it looks useful. Now I know what a Timar is. Robovski 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is understandable why this was originally nominated, but I think its time to withdraw the nomination now that those issues have been rectified. RFerreira 05:47, 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 Snowball Keep, no need for this to continue. VegaDark 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I Did It[edit]

If I Did It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep It's on cnn.com.

Non-existent book; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article can be written if and when this book is ever published. Agent 86 19:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, per nom. I've heard about it through the grapevine, but it's still just gossip at this point. I searched Google and couldn't find anything substantial as a source... a CourtTV.com "rumors" message board and Digg frontpage story aren't credible enough. Once this is confirmed -- if it is confirmed -- the page can be restored and we'll work from there. --Czj 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Keep, as proof of existence has now been established. Even if it's not quite making a splash in the search engines yet, apparently the news sites know about it. --Czj 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OJ Simpson. we only have enough about the book to write a sentence (It's been mentioned/confirmed..., scheduled for release..., and is about...). Once there's more info available we can write more. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the books exists, is being published November 30 and Fox News is airing a two-part interview with Simpson on November 27 and 29. The nomination is based on the book's not existing and it clearly does. [45] Otto4711 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Note, I added the box at the top which says that this is an expected future book. I think this overcomes the crystal ball argument (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_book_seven). I agree that this may not have enough credible sources. Cmsb705 19:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously AdamBiswanger1 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the article needs to have a few sources added to it. I believe there's an article on CNN.com about it now. 23skidoo 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a link to a Reuters article but more is certainly welcome. Otto4711 20:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to the nature of the subject and the apparent publicity surrounding it, although I would also support a merge to the author until such as time when there is enough externally verifiable information to produced a third-party, sourced, and verifiable article. -- saberwyn 20:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNew York Time reported on the book today: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/15book.html?ref=business
  • Keep While true that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article is notable as it is not unverifiable speculation and the subject matter has certainly has enough wide-spread interest to "merit an article if the anticipated event had already occurred" . According to news reports the book is to go on sale in two weeks, so it has already been written and is almost certain to be released and sold as per WP:NOT#CBALL. Why, oh why can't he just go away.. JGardner 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is clearly a notable book and event. Rray 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -It is a widely reported story in the news, and currently has almost 2,000 Google news hits, even before the publication. If anything, the article should be expanded to include the reaction in the publishing industry, as well as the greater public. And this is not speculation. As well as being on the news, the book is listed on the Harper Collins website [46].Additionally, I think it should be linked to--but not merged with--the article about Simpson and the murders he committed. Jeffpw 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple independent sources: publisher and AP story, interview on Today show. If the truth fits, you must admit. Edison 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the book cover from Harper Collins, the ISBN and a link to the Harper website. The book is happening, and it is going to cause a storm of controversy. This article needs to be kept. Jeffpw 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Its one of the headline news stories at CNN and definitely exists (not really sure how it is "still just gossip").Wikipediarules2221 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons listed above. There is no conflict with the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, as this is both "notable" and "almost certain to take place." Even when it wasn't "certain" to take place, the "speculation (was) well documented," as noted in all the arguments listed above. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is in place to prevent original research, which this article is not.--Hnsampat 23:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Crystal Ball policy says, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This book/TV special is almost certain to take place as the events are highly advertised and the release of the book is all but a certainity (It has probably already been shipped.) This book has already had numerous reviews and will almost certainly be a NY Times Best Seller (but such a prediction is using a crystal ball.)Balloonman 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added quote from various publishers and Denise Brown. Will get a quote from Ron Goldman's father later. Jeffpw 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The book is scheduled to go on sale in just over 2 weeks. A good portion of the article is cited even. Granted there could be some editing to remove some original research but I don't know how much more positive we need to be that this will be released. I'm not understanding the nomination even. How is the book "non-existant"? If someone reported that OJ Simpson might be writing a book in the future, that's non-existant. If major news outlets and the publisher speaking about a book scheduled to be released in two weeks along with a major promotional television appearance doesn't make a book "existant" then what is existant?Hammy 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This book clearly exists, and will be published in the near future.--Danaman5 01:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is factoral, this is a book, this is a contriversial issue. --69.67.235.55 04:42, 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 speedy delete per WP:BLP and WP:CSD G10 (attack pages). --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who were obese in childhood[edit]

This is listcruft, and no reason has been given about why this is encyclopedic, hence its nomination for deletion. SunStar Net 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an article about living people making potentially defamatory claims without sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Useless listcruft by some person with nothing better to do. Silly idea to begin with. MartinDK 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke from orbit as unverifiable, unsourced, and a mild attack page. -- saberwyn 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Violates WP:OR, impossible to make this into anything that would remotely add to the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Besides that, it's mean. OfficeGirl 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong or Speedy Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V.--Húsönd 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right up there with List of Wikipedia editors who were obese in childhood. Edison 23:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KillBalloonman 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Wikipedia articles which were obviously a bad idea. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous, false information. None of these people were obese in childhood (at least none of the names I recognize). Ally Sheedy was a child actor for crying out loud. Wavy G 01:00, 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 - not much discussion, but the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nom. Yomanganitalk 10:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Warr[edit]

This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, and I have found no sources that assert the notability of the subject. SunStar Net 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable plus the user who created this article has just been indefinitely blocked[47] for apparant malicious use of deletion tags. Gdo01 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (for now) Regardless of the article creator now being banned, if the subject is/was the producer and director of many shows on a major national television network, it warrants inclusion. WP:V would be helpful for us to decide. --Oakshade 18:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Now Keep thanks to the source below, more specifically this one [48]. --Oakshade 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source seems to assert notability: here seems to show some assertion on the BFI website, so maybe I was wrong to nominate it for deletion. --SunStar Net 21:05, 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 All three articles speedy deleted as complete nonsense and hoaxes. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 7[edit]

Shrek 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unapologetic crystal-ball-ism, and as such, violates WP:NOT. This movie has not even been announced as a project; the current movie in the series is Shrek the Third. Since it doesn't exist yet in even a conceptual stage, there's no hope of satisfying WP:V. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While were at it why not add back the Rocky 45 movie as well ;-)Balloonman 23:39, 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 Redirect to Political families of India. The article is unsourced and unencyclopedic, so there is nothing for me to merge, but the edit history will be kept, so some elements can be moved to the new article at editorial discretion (or the article can be rewritten and sourced). ~ trialsanderrors 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab's political families[edit]

Punjab's political families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains original research without any references or citations. Also, the article is not neutral stating that some few families or castes dominate the politics of the region. Delete as the article violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:58, 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. Proto::type 11:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude2cinema[edit]

Prelude2cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously deleted article (old AFD), though substantially different so not speedyable as G4. The article appears to be an unencyclopedic advertisement for a company which does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It has been largely untouched since being deprodded nearly two months ago. BigDT 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertisment and does not assert notability. Trebor 22:10, 19 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 Can't sleep, clown will eat me. MER-C 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Patel[edit]

The article is vandalism, a message from one person to another. Sorry if I missed some steps in the AfD process. I'm on a satellite connection which kicks me out of my account when I'm on an unsecured Wikipedia page. I'm thinking this isn't good for this process. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - for future reference, please see WP:CSD. If a page meets certain criteria, it may be "speedy deleted", without being brought to AFD. BigDT 23:30, 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, this has turned into a talk page anyway. Redirect to Italian profanity set as somewhat common misspelling. ~ trialsanderrors 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Va' fa' un culo[edit]

Va' fa' un culo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This orphaned article is based on an incorrectly transcribed Italian curse phrase. Shunpiker 21:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef (no pun intended). --Charlene 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. Lincher 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definiately an incorrect translation. Spero che non troviamo questa nel futuro... SkierRMH 09:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am Italian, and the correct way is "vaffanculo", and it's already explained in Italian profanity. --Angelo 20:51, 19 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 05:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland Mall[edit]

Wonderland Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This mall has now been demolished and has no residual notability. Delete. BlueValour 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe in expired notability, that once a subject is notable, it is always notable. If not, 1/2 of the bios on this site should be deleted. Given that I don't see a reason to delete the article from a cursory glance and that I don't accept the nom's rationale, my opinion is a weak keep. hateless 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - fair point so let me expand. I don't think that there was anything notable about this mall; it was just a fairly large mall. However, there is an argument that a large open mall merits an article because it provides information to people who might visit it. Naturally, that rationale no longer applies and there seems no reason to keep the article. I have added a reference to the mall in the locality article at Livonia, Michigan and that seems sufficient. BlueValour 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - once notable, always notable. So I do not agree with the nomination that this mall is losing its notability by being demolished. Intead, it is now simply historic notability. The article does state that this is was the first mal built in the city, but gives no sources, which is why i'm making this a weak keep. -- Whpq 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The bulk of this article is dedicated to what stores were in the mall and why the mall ultimately failed. There are thousands upon thousands of malls in the world -- why is this one notable? The article makes no attempt to tell us and thus fails WP:NOTABILITY JGardner 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JGardner. Edison 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demolish per JGardner. MartinDK 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Show me one reference that shows this ex-mall is notable today. Just as something can be not notable and later reach notability, something can be notable(barely, if at all in this case) and then later slip in to a lack of notability(for example ceasing to exist). I may change my mind if new evidence is provided(such as showing people really miss it). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't believe in once notable, always notable, otherwise there would be an article on Alfred Albonition, but even google does not remember him. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came across this issue on RC Patrol once - for some reason I think we have a whole list of defunct malls. I don't know how that cuts, so I won't "vote," but just wanted to pass it along. --TheOtherBob 01:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if trimmed back to factual nub, with the guesstimates as to why it closed removed. Otherwise it's Abenobashi in Real Life -- Simon Cursitor
  • Delete. The reason in the nom is not why since it would not be valid. My problem is that the article does not assert notability. Without that it needs to go. If it was notable, then it can not be deleted. Vegaswikian 06:41, 19 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. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Obal[edit]

  • DeleteThis is not a fucking joke.....this is my private life and please take it down. Im NOT HAPPY about this!!!!!!! Stan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.71 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2006
When writing biographies about people on Wikipedia, the approval of the person being written about is not necessary. Also, please try to be civil in your comments on Wikipedia in the futureVeinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Notable. Keep. Unixham 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— Unixham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete Stan Obal is known internationally for his contributions to the scooter community. There are thousands of people who consider him not only notable but also magnificent.71.56.102.255 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Christina Sacco — 71.56.102.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete Notable per WP:BIO. Apparently important both in the vintage scooter community and in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He has had numerous awards named for him at various scooter rallies. Lack of ghits does not make someone un-notable. Qmax 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Of course if you live in your mom's basement, and never leave the house, like Hatch68, NeoChaosX, and Veinor, then you've never met Stan. But I fully expect this to be deleted because anytime someone tries to post useful information about scooters or the scooter scene on Wikipedia or Wiktionary the post always gets deleted or reverted by some moron with no actual knowledge on the subject. scooteristi 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal attacks like that are not necessary. I have no bias here, but simply feel that this person does not merit an entry. You can have as many people come here and make statements as you'd like, but no one has provided firm references and even people coming here to inveigh against deletion are making nonsensical entries to the article like "Stan has big hands." I'm convinced now that there is a certain amount of "sock puppetry" occuring on this discussion page as well.--Hatch68 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree; there's either some sock puppets or meat puppets here. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Being involved in the scootering scene for several years and I believe that the scootering community is large enough to support this entry. Once this entry is embraced an abundance of information will be posted. Long live Stan Obal on Wikipedia. (these comments added by Zemzem) — Zemzem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Fails the notable person test.--Hatch68 21:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be noted here that User:Hillcityjosh is a member of the club mentioned in the Stan Obal article according to this web site so his comments on this page are not neutral.--Hatch68 04:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. He is well known and an icon for the entire US east coast scooter community and not Chattanooga only. Trophyes for scooter events of significant size have been named after him. Scooterist community is large and will support him. LP, B'ham, AL — 206.17.145.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The assertions of notability in terms of scootering are insufficient, and his bands were wholly non-notable. "Stan Obal" gets only 43 unique Google hits, and "Stanley Obal" gets just 25. -- Kicking222 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And "I will establish notability later" is not a reason to keep. You have to do it immediately. -Amarkov blahedits 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Amarkov and Kicking222. The vintage scooter community and Chattanooga aren't large enough to establish actual notability. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do deleteAdasarathy 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this person fails the WP:BIO test of notability. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, skoot. Ohconfucius 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Who are you to say that his bands were non-notable? Timescape Zero was very influential to early 90's Miami-style Hardcore. How many unique google hits does the average person get? That is not a valid argument. The scootering community is quite large. 152.163.100.71
  • Do Not Delete - I think that like many things, scooterists are not particularily involved in posting their victories on the internet. I think that if someone like Archimedes Plutonium deserves a wikipedia page that someone who has actually accomplished something in terms of his musical and driving career deserves an entry. User:Jojo-themonkey --Jojo-themonkey 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC) — Jojo-themonkey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • "If article X them article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Your only arguments are sources, sources, sources. Please cite some. Without them, you have effectively made no argument at all. Uncle G 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A number of sources have been cited, including the Scooter Cannonball Run. The issue seems to be whether they provide sufficient evidence of Stan Obal's notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Qmax
  • Delete. This one is ultraeasy. 43 Ghits does not a notable person make. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 18:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. --TheOtherBob 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I'm wondering what is notable in the current scooter scene. If anyone is listed this guy should be! Syncop8 — Syncop8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • So far, none of the editors claiming that this person has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" have actually cited any such historical records. If you wish to demonstrate that this person satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, you must cite where this person has been documented in the history of xyr field. Arguments that are not consistent with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, such as "Scooterist community is large and will support him.", do not count. And claiming that this person is part of an enduring historical record and then being unable to point to that record will wholly undermine your argument. Please cite sources. Uncle G 21:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Winning the Scooter Cannonball race makes it a closer question. However, to pass the bio test for widely recognized contribution in a specific field, there must still be some independent media coverage. All I could find were blogs, clubs and a mention by an advertiser. -Kubigula (ave) 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pease delete this. stan is a big jerk and i am more popular than him, even if he has big hands and a huge shlong. no, of course i'm not drunk. he is a mean, mean person - i once saw him spit on a jew and kick a retarded kid in his netherregions, just because he had large, deformed ears. i humbly toss my vote into the hat of DELETE!!!!!!!!!! mean, mean man- please! Rob Downs (ave) 23:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)— robdowns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DELETE - I am the original author of this page and request it be deleted. Hillcityjosh 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? You only get to do that if it was mistakenly created, or is in your userspace. And if you're the only contributor. None of those are satisfied. -Amarkov blahedits 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he is notable.Delete, I mistook irrelevant things for references. Ignore sockpuppets, please. -Amarkov blahedits 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're changing your vote? No reliable sources have been given to meet WP:Bio and most of the sockpuppets have weighed in to keep the article, not delete it.--Hatch68 22:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing my vote? What? Also, I don't really care what side socks weigh in on, they should still be ignored. -Amarkov blahedits 22:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, consider action against disruptive SPA's as well - As per excellent arguments by UncleG. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete precisely as per Uncle G. Arm-waving is a waste of time, space and everybody's patience - without sources the article will be deleted. Find them, please, or accept our policies with good grace. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I'm neither a meat-puppet or sock-puppet, and they're Wikipedia's policies, no more so yours than anyone else. He's notable for winning a number of events in the Scootering scene; poor representation on Wikipedia is not a reason against inclusion. Qmax 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No one accused you of being either one but some SPA's have made a vote in this discussion. Furthermore, in order to pass WP:BIO there must be widely recognized contribution in a specific field of which there is independent media coverage -- and not just blogs and fansites. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt The notability criteria are obviously not met here and it's becoming increasingly obvious that this person's friends just created the article as a joke to embarrass him. Just end the charade now. JChap2007 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Most of the Google hits are discussion groups, blogs or Myspace pages. I can't find any mainstream news coverage of the subject. --Metropolitan90 05:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. There's just no sources here for these silly assertions of notability. Sandstein 07:06, 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 (already covered in the Tim Hadcock-Mackay stub anyway). Yomanganitalk 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnby Moor Hall[edit]

This house is of no architectural merit other than having been the home of a deceased minor celebrity. England has literally thousands of houses of equal to this, if not of more interest and notability. It's history is unrecorded and it has been much altered both internally and external since being built just over a 100 years ago. I see no purpose in retaining this page. Giano 21:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - of minor interest here but otherwise no notability. BlueValour 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just too nn for inclusion. SkierRMH 09:18, 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 Keep ~ trialsanderrors 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Behdad[edit]

Hamed Behdad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

violates WP:BIO criteria, please look at 'discussion' page, as the submitter admits the NN of the person in question SkierRMH 21:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Delete This is an actor who doesn't appear to be notable for purposes of Wikipedia. If he becomes more successful and more well-known in the future, as he has the potential to do, then at that later date we could reconsider having an article about him. OfficeGirl 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The work done by cab is commendable. I'd say the article is at least up to stub quality now. But I still have reservations about notability.OfficeGirl 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Starred in at least three films, decent amount of coverage in Iranian newspapers. Also one film he starred in, Boutique, seems to have gotten a fair amount of international attention (film festivals and the like). cab 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cab. --Oakshade 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The filmography is a bit light, but there is at least some international notice of him. (I contested SkierRMH's speedy.) Does anything in Persian verify the assertion that he is "the best Iranian actor" in any sense? --Mereda 07:49, 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. — CharlotteWebb 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and Cru Kahui[edit]

non notable Gruoos 21:57, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic cause of Parkinson's Disease[edit]

Duplicate of Parkinson's_disease#Toxins. Dr Zak 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE this is a complete reprinting of text from another website which is copyrighted. When I tried to make this vote a moment ago, the system would not allow me because I had included a "blacklisted hyperlink." I assume that means that the source of the copyrighted material is blacklisted? I found the material at "viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/toxic.causes.htm" OfficeGirl 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I don't find this article to be an exact duplicate of Parkinson's_disease#Toxins at all, but rather duplicative in purpose. There is a "chicken or the egg" question for me on the COPYVIO issue. While I am unsure of the methods to verify whether the viartis.net site copied from Wikipedia or vice-versa, the text of this article does not even approach the scholarship and use of reliable sources found in the Parkinson's Disease article. The text of this article, especially when viewed as the viartis.net site presents it, comes across like conspiracy-cruft intended to scare readers. Even if it is not a COPYVIO, there is nothing in this article that would add to Parkinson's_disease#Toxins. OfficeGirl 00:39, 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. —Centrx→talk • 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Onofri[edit]

Tommaso Onofri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable Gruoos 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pictureuploader 00:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mishatx 03:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Heuvelman 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Heartbreakingly sad, but things like this happen somewhere in the world almost every week and they can't all have their own articles. wikipediatrix 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad, but still nn. SkierRMH 09:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 101 Newsbank hits on the case. WP:NOT a memorial, but writing biographies on individuals who became newsworthy is very much within the scope of Wikipedia. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 21 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 04:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wepod[edit]

Wepod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Non-notable. Vanity. Neologism. AlistairMcMillan 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above; I put this page on my watchlist so when I got the chance I would put this on AFD. Alistair beat me to it. —EdGl 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I previously added a prod tag, but the article creator removed this. Jenny Wong 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails the fails everything criteria. SkierRMH 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like it was written by someone involved. Nihiltres 04:02, 21 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. —Centrx→talk • 06:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Warrior[edit]

The Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable student-run university newspaper. Maxamegalon2000 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom... nn publication. SkierRMH 09:23, 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 15:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiktionaryZ[edit]

WiktionaryZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable websites. alexa 418,401 rank. per WP:NN and WP:WEB. Vangkok 22:23, 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 redirect. W.marsh 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Found Me[edit]

You Found Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Very minimal content (3 sentences exlcuding the lyrics, which shouldn't be on WP), badly formatted/laid out also. Liverpool Scouse 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable song, as it's not a single, and without the copyvio lyrics, the article is nearly blank (not that this matters, since the song wouldn't deserve its own article, anyway). -- Kicking222 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kicking222. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Breakaway (album), we generally redirect songs not released as singles to albums unless we have something better to put under the title, I think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:43, 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 speedy delete as an attack page. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edmargatus[edit]

Edmargatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article sounds like a work of fiction or a hoax. In addition, the article name, "Edmargatus" reads like a real person's name (as in, "Edmar Gatus") Tito Pao 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless this is verified, with sources, it ought to be deleted. -- Simon Cursitor 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero ghits exc WP. Edmar Gatus was deleted as an attack page. Tubezone 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reads like a hoax to me... maybe even a personal attack. It does indeed read like a name, and I can't find references to it anywhere except in this article... but with the help of Google, I did find "Edmar Gatus" listed on a page of graduating seniors at a certain high school. Something's a little fishy here. Ministry of Silly Walks 03:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does read like a hoax, non encyclopedic at any rate. SkierRMH 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, this is a personal attack. I attend high school with this person and this is indeed crap posted here by some immature pricks in my school. 08:45, 18 November 2006 (GMT +8:00)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign interference with elections in democratic countries[edit]

Foreign interference with elections in democratic countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is little more that a conglomeration of various unsubstantiated and poorly sourced conspiracy theories forked in part from other articles, violates WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and is a prime example of what is wrong with most article forks in the first place Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into relevant articles or Delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge feels like an essay, not an article, violates WP:POV, WP:RS and probably WP:NOR GabrielF 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Somehow the KGB or Soviet interference or conspiracies are conspicuously absent from this article, which just goes to show why this is an just an article written in bad faith. I doubt it can be improved. Intangible 22:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per nomination. Also need to remove the link from the election article. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite for NPOV and WP:V. If this article is to be kept, Chinese and Korean influence in US elections should be included as well, not just US influence on other countries. It should not include foreign events that influence elections (e.g. terrorist attacks) but explicit influence like funding opposition parties or assassinating candidates. The phenomenon itself is certainly notable and there's lots of verifiable evidence of it, but this article is poorly written as is. Remember, the AfD process is not the place to address such things -- poorly written articles on notable topics should be rewritten, not AfD'd.-csloat 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an important, and real subject. This article lacks sources, but I am sure this sort of thing has been documented(says a guy who has not checked yet). I think this needs alot of improvement. I think the {{Not verified}} and {{references}} tags are more productive than the AfD. Though I can understand why this was nominated, however I disagree. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no merging whatsoever. Unsourced, POV fork, no meaningful wikilinks, potentially infinitely expandable (what, no paragraph yet about how "Hugo Chavez owns Diebold!!!11!OMGWTF!11!"?), and not a subject title that any user would ever come searching for in the first place. Kill with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 03:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question but how do you really feel about it? ;) csloat 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Violates WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:RS, WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and WP:FRINGE. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Morton DevonshireYo 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part POV fork of Operation Gladio, part WP:OR. Sandstein 05:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and morton, this is a horrible POV fork and not a term that anyone would actually search for. I say just delete it and move on. --NuclearZer0 13:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A proper article on this subject would need to be immensely long, detailed and provide reputable sources. It would also probably need to stretch back centuries (how about Ancient Greece?). An incomplete version would almost certainly be POV. The current version is terribly POV. --Folantin 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - burn with fire: this kind of POV-content-fork-gibberish should go outright. Nothing worth merging. Moreschi 16:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this has been a good brainstorming so far what else has to be added. if you look at the gladio-article there are enough references for what is said in the article. no need to copy those into this article.--Taintain 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Morton Tbeatty 05:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Morton. - Crockspot 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or rename to the more accurately descriptive Yet more evil from the perfidious and hypocritical Americans. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly, I don't see this article ever being more than a copy-and-paste job from other articles. Also, the topic is too broad and vague. For example, should 'interference' by foreign people be included? What about Australian Citizen Rupert Murdock's interference in UK elections through his ownership of national media? In Bolivia people felt that Venezuelan President Chavez' open support for Morales was interference. But if public comments and opinions by foreigners are interference then Blair's expression of support for Bush would count. And what about EU support for national referenda? The topic is endless and prone to OR. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Converting it to a straight list of articles on this topic might be an alternative to deletion. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 03:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only value could be that warriors will concentrate here and stay out of the rest of WP. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Morton Devonshire and as POV fork of Operation Gladio. --MCB 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Fork. --Strothra 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork article.--Jersey Devil 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright, no merge. Brimba 10:08, 20 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. —Centrx→talk • 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Birdhouse in Dr. Ashen's Soul[edit]

The Birdhouse in Dr. Ashen's Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No sign of importance at all. 12 unique G-hits for "The Birdhouse in Dr. Ashen's Soul" [49] and 17 unique for "Stuart Ashen" [50]. Stuart_Ashen. is a redirect to this same page. IrishGuy talk 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename and edit - I'm a big fan of this guy but I don't understand why this entry was set up for his site. He's usually referred to as "Dr. Ashen" [51]and he does well-known video reviews. The article should be under that name and should concentrate on him and his more famous stuff, not on his site which is not notable. Maisie777 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "dr. ashen" garners slightly over 100 ghits and most aren't this person. IrishGuy talk 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: Also, it's puzzling that User:Maisie777 says "I don't understand why this entry was set up for this site" when in fact, User:Maisie777 is the creator of this article. wikipediatrix 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I didn't create this article - If I remember I copied it over from a less correctly punctuated name. I did add the details I knew though. Anyway, the google search should have been "Dr Ashen" without the period, my bad. Perhaps he isn't famous enough anyway, I don't know. Maisie777 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies... I had one window up with your contrib history and one up with the article's history, and I confused the two. That's what I get for eating pizza while Wiki-ing. User:NightLord is the creator of the article. wikipediatrix 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now he has been signed up to do his video reviews (which have become little internet hypes when released (i saw them everywhere), but as noted maybe it shoukd be renamed Romanista 10:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signed up by whom? What are you talking about? IrishGuy talk 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the part about his video reviews being linked all over the net when they appear, but I don't have a clue about the "signed up" bit. Maisie777 23:32, 20 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 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gad's House of Improv[edit]

Mr. Gad's House of Improv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As much as I love Gad's, individual college clubs aren't really appropriate to include as individual articles. (We've deleted plenty of newspapers, GSAs, etc. before.) I suppose I wouldn't oppose a sentence in the AC article staying in, but this article is excessive, largely unverifiable (no written sources on Gad's), unencyclopedic, and possibly advert. - Che Nuevara 22:54, 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 DELETE. jni 09:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math Formulae[edit]

Math Formulae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a couple of links; possibly redirect to Formula or Formula (mathematical logic) Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, maybe speedy as advertisement. Articles which just link to other sites fail WP:NOT. -Amarkov blahedits 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A3. Redirect is not a bad idea, though. Mishatx 03:40, 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 merge. W.marsh 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure Suit Larry: Cocoa Butter[edit]

Leisure Suit Larry: Cocoa Butter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a video game that never happened. The entire article is three sentences long. I fail to see how an article on a non-existent game is encyclopedic. IrishGuy talk 23:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude. There's evidence on the web that this game was at one point in development (or, at least, to be developed), so it's not a hoax, but it's also not notable enough on its own (since there was apparently very little, if anything, actually done on the game) so as to necessitate a separate WP article. -- Kicking222 01:03, 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. Suggest citing more sources in the article though. W.marsh 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Bay Laurel[edit]

Alicia Bay Laurel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable person. Cites no WP:RS, so appears to be unverifiable WP:OR. Also fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable late 60s early 70s counterculture writer and artist. 26,300 Ghits isn't bad for somebody who wrote a New York Times bestseller (published by a notable publisher, Random House) 35 years ago.[52] She's mentioned on AOL Music Now [53]. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin [54] and Metroactive Magazine [55] have published online articles about her. As a musician she's received reviews in eJazznews, a notable jazz music website [56]. --Charlene 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while looking for old NY Times Best Sellers lists, I've found from even the free NY Times previews that they did profiles of this subject and her writings. [57][58] --Oakshade 05:59, 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 Speedy deleted by Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -Amarkov blahedits 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-league video game[edit]

X-league video game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete does not contain enough context to be a stub, and is one something that has not come out yet Exarion 23:26, 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 ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Giroux[edit]

Justin Giroux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD candidate. I believe this article is a hoax. I can find no mention of a notable Justin Giroux anywhere, or of the group "Ordo Ab Mors" that he is supposed to be a member of. When the article creator was asked for a reference, he added the external link. Unfortunately, the website does not contain Mr. Giroux's name anywhere that I can see. Joyous! | Talk 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete quite obviously a hoax according to Google. Worst part is that a previous attempt at speedy deletion was foiled by the original editor. This has been up for over 6 months. Time to put an end to this one. MartinDK 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense. Mishatx 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... fails the fails everything criteria. SkierRMH 09:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. -- Satori Son 21:14, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Island[edit]

Noah's Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable TV show. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Notable show, notable cast (the main character is played by Ron Moody!). No convincing reason given to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Was shown on the BBC in the United Kingdom. Readro 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What possible reason could there be to delete this it was aired in many countries over a 3 year period, was made by respectable company and has notable cast. Not many references on net so even more reason to keep.
  • Speedy Keep It's a show I've seen on the BBC. Certainly notable what with having been seen by many viewers in this country alone. Robovski 05:43, 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 speedy redirect and merge. While this doesn't fall into any speedy category, I'm invoking WP:IAR and let everyone get back to improving the encyclopedia instead of starting another meaningless argument. JYolkowski // talk 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cynwyd Elementary School[edit]

Cynwyd Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don't anyone say "all schools are inherently notable", because that simply isn't the case. What we have here is a school which fails to assert notability. That it exists is proven by Google, but there's nothing notable about it. The Speedy tag was removed by an editor without comment or the addition of matter asserting notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to locality. Looks coimpletely generic, and we really don't need to know about owlbert. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Lower Merion School District Every deletionist is going to point out that this is a non-notable elementary school, and every inclusionist is going to point out that all schools are notable, even when there's little information (and no unique information) in the article. Why don't we just avoid this and redirect to the district? I know this doesn't meet any actual "speedy" criteria, but we should just avoid this debate, which could very easily aggravate many editors (myself included). I would urge deletion, but since the school district has an article, I have no reason not to ask for this article name to be pointed there. -- Kicking222 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to the district article per Kicking222's reasoning. Non-notable elementary school, and existence is not indicator of notability. Close this AfD before it becomes the usual firefight that all school AfDs end up becoming. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per the philosophy above. --Czj 01:46, 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. Independent coverage needs to be incorporated into the article though. ~ trialsanderrors 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySearch[edit]

FamilySearch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the parent organisation for Personal Ancestral File, which was redirected following AfD and now resurrected. The sources for this areticle are: the LDS, the LDS, the LDS and a page at Brigham Young University (i.e. the LDS). I call mormoncruft. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no practical purpose or point. The concept behind it can be discussed in larger articles. Pahoran513 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not ready to vote yet. I am not a member of the LDS, but I am an amateur geneologist and a big fan of this site. In other words, I think it has notability outside of just LDS circles. I'm not sure how it compares to the standards outlined at WP:WEB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMS63112 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - there are plenty of references that have nothing to do with the LDS church available (even if they are not currently in the article). As most genealogists recommend or make use of the resource there. A quick google search on current news includes several articles:
    • The Cincinnati Post carries an article by the Kentucky history staff of the Kenton County Public Library
    • Government Technology reports on the Virginia Governor's announcement of digitization of African-American Historical Information
    • The Albuquerque Tribune has an article on doing genealogy from your home
    • etc...
    • Additionally, many public libraries offer classes on using the familysearch resources
    • Finally, genealogy trade magazines online and in print often have articles on familysearch and their are tens of books that cover this article as well.
I'm not sure whether this article is appropriate or not yet but there is no lack of independent resources that would justify deletion.
At the very least, if real mormoncruft like that being discusse on the Mormon mysticism (AfD can be kept (with blogs and a few newspaper mentions in passing as references). While articles which have a plethera of independent resources are deleted - there is something wrong... --Trödel 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid website with a large following and is useful for anyone researching their family history. Certainly a website featured on Good Morning America is worth an article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. FamilySearch.org is a very well known site among genealogists, and has many useful tools for anyone, even those who are not LDS. A search on Google News shows several articles mentioning or about FamilySearch.org. Ancestry.com, arguably the largest family history research site on the web, has multiple articles about the site in their Daily News, in Ancestry Magazine, and various online columns, showing here (you may need a subscription to the site in order to view the results). FamilySearch.org is not a bit player in the online genealogy world. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although FamilySearch is referenced/discussed in the Genealogy article, the site's name is well known to genealogists online and would be a natural search at Wikipedia. Sure, it's an LDS site, and uses LDS references, but the site and its associated physical library have broad use by genealogists of all categories because of its vast stores of information. WBardwin 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is conditional. I believe the article needs to be rewritten with the main focus on genealogy. This may evolve into a future merge or expansion. The sponsor of the site should not be in the introductory paragraph. The value of the article is easily apparent to anyone that any degree of interest in researching one's roots. Storm Rider (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not "mormoncruft". Sure, the LDS church proselysizes heavily in their communities, but having been a non-LDS volunteer at one of their largest family history centers for ten years, I have never heard any proselytizing to genealogists. Yes, the article can mention the church provides financial and technical support (somebody had to be reponsible for this free database), but I don't consider the discrete links to their main church site at the side or bottom of the FamilySearch site proselytizing. GUllman 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however I also do think that the primary focus of the article should be strengthened, demonstrating more clearly how this site contributes to genealogy and the general genealogical comunity; it should most definitely not be allowed to devolve into a myopic "here's another something Mormons do" belly-navel contemplating article. Also it would be much better if a large portion (a majority if possible) of the references cited should be from non-LDS sources. I think that Trödel has a good start above; anyone care to start adding some of that to the article itself? -- FishUtah 02:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pretty much everyone else. When you called mormoncruft, who answered? RFerreira 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Convinced to go with keep per Ideogram dude/gal, with caveat by Storm Rider that it focus on the geneology. --Trödel 14:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • insider comment We've been working on the next version for a few years now. Currently we have about 75 software engineers on the project, approaching a second beta test cycle for version 0.9 of what we are calling internally "new FamilySearch". Version 0.9 will have limited access, but when we finally release version 1.0, this is going to be HUGE in the world of genealogy. This article, if deleted now, will resurface in a big way. Ever hear of petabyte-sized databases? :) Wadsworth 23:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most useful websites, along with rootsweb.com, and the New York Times archive, for writing biographies for Wikipedia. It has good access to original documents and there is no charge to use it. Is there such a thing as "CruftCruft" yet? That's where by deriding everything as cruft, the concept of cruft becomes useless. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:41, 19 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 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Weintraub[edit]

Bill Weintraub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article violates Wikipedia's vanity page, original research,and verifiability guidelines. Concerning vanity, the oringinal text of the article (the current version of which has changed very little)seems to be a cut and paste job from User:Bill_Weintraub, which is in turn derived from a webpage that attributes itself to and is maintained by Bill Weintraub[59].

Concerning, original research and verifiability, there seem to be no extant, published, and freely accessible sources independent of the infromation that Bill Weintraub was directly involved in disseminating (either from his website or aritcles and interviews in the print media) that can corroborate what is written in the Wikipedia article. For instance, searching for Cambridge (MA) Gay Political Caucus and Bill Weintraub [60](both as qutoed phrases) turns up only the Wikipedia article and pages maintained by Bill Weintraub. Perfoming similar searches [61], [62], [63], [64], [65] on Weintraub's othe listed activist work yields similar results. Delete Mijopaalmc 00:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, verifiable, and OR as above. Robovski 05:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name rings a bell, but not for this reason. If this is kept, there will need to be a disambig and at least a stub on the other B.W. -- Simon Cursitor 08:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 22:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom... don't see use as a stub. SkierRMH 09:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_15&oldid=1116878282"