Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Education Personnel Management[edit]

Education Personnel Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Education Personnel Management was set up as a result of Government legislation which affected the way that Schools were managed in the 1990's. The externalisation of the then Cambridgeshire County Council Personnel service was discussed in Parliment and significantly changed the HR provision and control of staffing in schools.

Education Personnel Management is of historic importance within the Education field and in the delivery of services to schools throughout England and Wales. An entry for Education Personnel Management is therefore appropriate within the wikipedia.

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





























































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Seco Raceway[edit]

Arroyo Seco Raceway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fails notability. If we had articles on every small drag strip and race course in this country, we'd have a whole WikiProject on them. Diez2 00:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Deleting seems logical...--SUIT 01:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, needs secondary sources, but if we have information about it, why not? The sheer number of possible articles is not a reason to exclude any one of them. Also, how can it fail notability? Which set of criteria are you applying here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Under the precedent "Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)." There is no evidence presented that this race course has received significant press coverage, nor is it the site of any nationally or regionally notable race. Movementarian (Talk) 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This isn't just a random small town racecourse. I agree with the premise if it WAS, but this raceway does receive some independant press. It appears to be a course used in Superbike racing series, and races there get covered by independant racing press. Some of these have been linked in the article itself, and the google search turns up some third-party press on races run there. Admitedly, it isn't Indianapolis Motor Speedway, but it seems to be notable within its own field. --Jayron32 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources cited seem to only "mention" the speedway, not be a study of it (or really assert its importance). I can't seem to find any better sourcing on Google, and the press coverage shown does not seem to meet notability.Change to keep, latest source cited provides evidence of notability and enough information for an article. Seraphimblade 05:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two factors which would have convinced me on possible notiablity even though it lacks substancial media coverage. 1. Geographic connection it location Akela Flats, New Mexico is a red link so no article about there. The two towns its roughly between have articles yet neither mention the Raceway. 2. IMHO the best of the references is about a track record yet that person, Doug Chandler doesnt have an article either. It is on an incomplete list of Dragstrips but there are plenty of red links on that. Gnangarra 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply notability cannot be established or refuted inside the context of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't exhaustive on any subject. The fact that it doesn't appear here doesn't mean it isn't notable, it just means someone hasn't written an article yet. In light of the specific evidence provided below by Oakshade, the article looks more and more notable, since we now have evidence that it is important outside of wikipedia. --Jayron32 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    response as I said the the media coverage IHMO didnt create notiability, given that I went looking for somewhere to suggest a possible merge as there was nothing so recommend deleting. I will say if those wanting to keep can commence some expansion, including links from other articles I'll change my position. Gnangarra 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Just to add to comments on the current articles of nearby towns not yet mentioning this raceway, as a member of WikiProject Trains, I spend alot of gnome time insterting very notable and major train stations that serve major cities into those cities' articles; Los Angeles Union Station in Los Angeles and Gare Centrale in Montreal just to name a couple. Certainly those stations weren't not-notable just because editors failed to write about them for a while. --Oakshade 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major US venue in the motorcycle racing world, particularly for Supermoto.. Found plenty of independent WP:V articles that are alot more than "mentions" of the speedway. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also the venue of the New Mexico State Championship Series [6]. --Oakshade 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewed new evidence, remain convinced of delete: Sources 1 and 6 are about a race. Source 2 is about a racer's association. Source 3, 4, and 5 are about individual racers. However, none seems to provide non-trivial information (besides name/phone #/location) of the raceway, which is what's under discussion here. Changed per source shown below. Seraphimblade 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading. No argument about the content of all of those articles. They are all notable races, racers and the organization (you're refering to the Arroyo Seco Motorcyclist Association) that this raceway is the location of and which independent WP:RS did articles of. --Oakshade 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hawaii Raceway Park (in quotations) reveals over 17,000 results and it's not an article. This track in question only has 552 results. What more can I say? Insufficient notability. Also per Diez2. Sr13 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a reason to create that article, not delete this one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Agreed (though I'm for deletion myself), "X article isn't here" is no more a valid delete reason then "X article is here" is a valid keep. Seraphimblade 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Let me rephrase. This article does not have sufficient notability. Sorry my former explanation wasn't clear enough...I was using the reverse of the Pokemon test.
  • Keep It seems to be a notable racetrack. Atlantis Hawk 09:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It is mentioned in several independent publications, even as the site of a race. That is borderline notability, compared to the vast majority of subjects of Wiki articles which lack even that. Edison 17:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Scienter 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a reason for this weak keep? Diez2 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Merely being the site of notable races does not automatically confer notability -- it's the races which are notable, not the racecourse. An article on the racecourse itself should ideally be supported by sources that are about the racecourse itself, not the races that take place there. — Haeleth Talk 22:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable because the races are notable. A race course article is mostly about the races held there. This article needs to be improved with the history of series racing and other notable races there. If you look at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, arguably the most notable race course in the US, for example, and cut out all of the parts pertaining to the races run there, it won't be that much bigger than this article. A course used by a series is notable. Dimitrii 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further references added About the track not just races, it is good material to fill out the article, enchantment, the second largest publication in New Mexico Over one quarter of the state's residents receive this monthly publication. Dimitrii 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current article as referenced, per commenters above. The creation of a Raceway WikiProject is not a bad idea. Yamaguchi先生 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs more detail, but clearly notable. Pete Fenelon 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is easily conceivable that someone researching racing would want to know about this racetrack. Wikipedia is not paper. -THB 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olsen 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ilyas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO utterly. He played for an under-17 team and is now playing for the senior Omani team? Delete, Delete, Delete. Diez2 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Being on a national team is normally a sign of notability. Isn't cricket a major sport in Oman, in light of the traditional British influence and the presence of expatriates from countries where cricket is a national sport? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete→Keep - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my vote due to below arguements... I actually didn't know that senior league was national... My mistake... Spawn Man 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league... I'd say that representing your country in sanctioned international competition qualifies. Movementarian (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When in doubt, apply primary notability test: Can we find references to this person in reputable, third party sources. Checking a google search turns up: this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, and this site that turns up specific reviews of his play, and this site that turns up a bio written by an independant cricket press. There are dozens of more reviews of his play, and much of it is actual articles, not just box scores. This is a player known to the sports press who receives significant nontrivial coverage, and thus is notable, regardless of his age. --Jayron32 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Represents his nation at senior level in one of the major world sports. Oman's cricket team may not be the greatest, and he may not be on course to be a second Don Bradman, but as a representative sportsman he is thoroughly notable. The fact that his name returns plenty of Google hits doesn't do much harm either.
Xdamrtalk 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per WP:CRIC's "Criteria guideline for article inclusion", any List A cricketer is eligible for an article, but I am going to disagree with it. I am all for having articles about any first class cricketer, but when it comes to List A, we have to take a look at the context. There is no point in having articles about every player from every Associate & Affiliate nation, unless he has done something really significant. Note that Oman is not even an Associate nation but an Affiliate one. The eligibility criteria in WP:CRIC should be revised to make it more rigorous. Tintin (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Regardless of the specifics in the individual notability criteria like WP:CRIC, we should NOT delete any article that we can find substantive information on in reliable sources. Regardless of his level of play, this cricketer shows up in MANY sources with non-trivial coverage. While every List A player from an Affiliate nation may not be notable, this one clearly is. Notability should never be based on a a strictly binary arguement (such as "all articles that meet this one criteria are ALL notable/any that do not are NEVER notable). While such guidelines help point us towards further investigation we should not make such claims when further investigation bears out notability. --Jayron32 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How is this person special? Prominent? Talk about the team (if anything), not the person. You might as well list a roster of the Oman cricket team. There isn't much information about him anyway. Sr13 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. He meets the criteria set forth for athletes in WP:BIO.
      • Response. Why is Nate Ilaoa not an article? NCAA football coaches have considered him important and "prominent" in the UH offense. He should be priority when creating UH football related content. Colt Brennan is an article though. Why? He is a "prominent" figure in UH football. Although team prominence is important, player prominence is important as well. Thus my decision. Also, WP:BIO mentions requirement "tests". One refers to the 100 year test- Will the person be remembered 100 years from now? Colt Brennan may. Not so sure about the person; the team possibly. Sr13 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is Nate Ilaoa not an article, you ask? The answer appears to be "because nobody has written an article about him". One might suggest that the fact that people care enough about Adnan Ilyas to write an article about him, but don't care enough about Nate Ilaoa to write an article about him, is an adequate indication of relative notability. — Haeleth Talk 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the point here is that these are two entirely separate questions. Whether Adnan Ilyas is deserving of an article should be decided on its own merits (I am not voting, but I will commend the research Jayron did here); if Nate Ilaoa is deserving of an article, start one. If you don't have time to really do it up right, create a stub. But "X doesn't deserve an article because Y doesn't have one" is not the right way to look at it. --DavidConrad 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response. I crossed the unclear section. To clarify, I say insufficient notability. Sr13 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has represented his country at adult international level, ergo he is notable. -- Necrothesp 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not entirely happy that a player who's appeared at no higher level than the ICC Trophy (which is, after all, very much a second-string international competition) is going to be notable. We wouldn't have a county cricketer who'd only played for a minor county. However, the ICC have deemed the 2005 (and onward) ICC Trophy to be worthy of List A status, and given that fact I think on balance he should stay. Loganberry (Talk) 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international cricketer, notable enough for me. --Canley 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A1 and A7. Speedy deletion is not biting a newbie. —Cuiviénen 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FriHost[edit]

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

A newbie was bitten in the hasty deletion of this article, even though a {{hangon}} request had been made. While I don't believe everything on Earth is Inherently Notable, I do believe in fair process. This article is certainly a candidate for speedy as it stands, but OTOH, a {{hangon}} request should be honored for a few minutes. This AfD is primarily procedural, meant to give the writer a bit of time to improve his article. Denni talk 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:WEB and meets criteria for db-web and db-empty.Diez2 00:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Nothing there. While I don't advocate biting the newbies, perhaps the newbie should be advised that a seven-word article isn't going to last very long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 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 as non-notable author. —Doug Bell talk 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ellwood[edit]

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

completing malformed AFD attemp by someone Mattisse(talk) 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Seems to have published a number of books, but all seem to have been very limited in circulation. (The Library of Congress and a library in Dunedin are the only places I can find that have any of them.) Still, I could be convinced of notability. —Cuiviénen 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While not exactly a vanity press, Immanion is a small, print-on-demand house, which employs Ellwood. As he is in charge of buying projects for the imprint his books appear under, it is very close to the same situation as a vanity press or self-publishing. The "press" store is on CafePress, which may also be who prints their books. Also, article was started by Rosencomet who is now under investigation for spamming Wikipedia with non-notable articles. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kathryn's info Bwithh 02:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless he's done something more substantial than what is already in the article, I can't really see keeping it. My understanding of Immanion: it was originally a vehicle to keep a particular SF/Fantasy author's books in print (Her name escapes me at the moment.) They've branched out to other authors and subjects but as a print-on-demand house, I'd say they are not much above a vanity press or even web publication. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I did a google search and checked some of the links there. Its nothing but blogs and forums and chat rooms where this person has contributed. No one in reliable sources reviews his/her work, no one has noticed him/her. Thus, he/she isn't notable. --Jayron32 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The original malformed AfD attempt was by someone who has since been blocked for vandalizing this page. --Tsuzuki26 04:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply ad hominem fallacy: Argue the article and not the persons involved in the arguement. Regardless of how obnoxious the original nominator was, it turns out (check google search and the article itself) there is an utter lack of any sources to make any verification of any facts that may be asserted in the article, nor is there any real notability. --Jayron32 05:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search on Amazon and Barnes & Noble returned books in stock. His books have been published and are carried by major book sellers. Seems notable to me, but what do I know? Movementarian (Talk) 06:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply interesting. Helpful, but still doesn't point to notability. If no one has reviewed his work, however, then he still isn't notable. The fact that his books are for sale means a little bit, but in light of the fact that no one OUTSIDE of wikipedia appears to have reviewed his work in reliable sources, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. If we can produce such coverage, I would change my vote. Merely being availible for purchase does not indicate notability. --Jayron32 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. I would agree if we were talking about one book, but we are talking about three at Amazon and four at Barnes & Noble. Having muliple books carried by major book sellers is notable. Movementarian (Talk) 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply: Anyone who pays for a UPC code and ISBN registration can sell their books through Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble online. They now carry many self-published books due to this. Additionally, print-on-demand books are always listed as "in stock" and/or "supply unlimited", depending on the website. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kathryn's information. ViridaeTalk 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kathryn's info, per failing WP:NOT a listing of self-published books, and notability. Since anyone who self-publishes can get into Amazon or B&N, also fails WP:RS. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per 2 books "shipped from stock" at Amazon which are in their top 250,000 in sales. He has several books for sale in addition which are apparently demand printed and less notable. I would love to know how to find # of books sold, since somewhere I saw a reference to 5,000 books sold as a guideline for notabiliity of author. In addition, I found 2 magazine article he wrote in a scholarly journal published by a university:[7] [8] Edison 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually check out this so called scholarly journal? And please read again Kathryn's note : in stock is a discriptor for print-on-demand. Does Amazon's site somehow specifically say "hey, we keep physical copies of this book"? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean: "Founded in 1959 by Thomas D. Clareson, Extrapolation was published at the College of Wooster until 1979 when it moved to the Kent State University Press. A decade later, Clareson stepped down as editor and was succeeded by Donald M. Hassler of the KSU English Department. In 2002 it moved to the University of Texas at Brownsville in Brownsville, Texas. At that time Donald M. Hassler became executive editor, and the position of editor was filled by Javier A. Martinez of UTB's English Department. The journal was the first to publish academic work on science fiction and fantasy and continues to be a leader in that specialized genre in the literature of popular culture." "Extrapolation is published quarterly by University of Texas, Brownsville. Subscription Rates: $18 one year, $34 two years individual; $28 one year, $54 two years institutional" What is your point?? Did you see the pictures and think it was just a blog?Edison 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd try the links in the article about it... Extrapolation (journal). -999 (Talk) 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From Amazon.com[9] "Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com." And from Space/Time Magic 's entry[10]: "Only 1 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." They seem to be selling well. And I'm pretty sure that the independent sellers listed have physical copies on hand. --Tsuzuki26 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a source for the authors books being "in [Amazon's] top 250,000 in sales" --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of this author. If not currently "notable" (whatever that means), certainly an up-and-coming author... -999 (Talk) 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Future notability is never a reason for inclusion. Any one of us might end up notable tomorrow, but we don't go around writing articles that say, "Aaron might be famous in the future, but for now he's just another college student." Arguing notability because you've heard of the author is also fallacious -- plenty of things exist that are verifiable, and thus can be mentioned to someone else, but that dosen't make them notable. Consequentially 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kathryn's mention of "in stock" being a misnomer is correct. That Ellwood's books are available online through Barnes and Noble is nowhere near as noteworthy as having them available on a shelf somewhere. Given Cuivi's commentary, the only shelves this book is on are in Ellwood's house. Consequentially 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They're on my shelf too. And apparently he's gotten a number of good reviews. --Tsuzuki26 00:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Movementarian, Edison and 999. —Hanuman Das 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anyone of his books meeting the proposed criteria for notability of books. Moreover, I want to re-insist on this point: that a book or an author is sold through Amazon does not meet that we have even close to what it takes to build a decent article. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note[edit]

Taylor Ellwood contacted me today and requested that I disclose that a group I am part of declined his offer to publish one of our projects on Immanion. Though I thought I made it clear to him in our brief exchange that the reason for our declining his offer was the details I give above (plus other shortcomings of the press I did not detail) he seems to believe this is a personal issue. He says he and I know each other. However, AFAIK, our contact was limited to two e-mails, IIRC, where he laid out details of the offer, my colleagues and I asked him questions about the press, and after research and discussion among ourselves, we decided to decline. Mr. Ellwood and I do know a few people in common, as is common in the small pond of the Pagan community, but we have never met and I really know very little about him beyond those brief e-mails. You can see our recent exchange here on my talk page. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another note of disclosure, I was part of the group (eight co-authors) Kathryn mentioned above that declined Taylor (as editor) and Immanion's offer to publish our project. I had no interchange with Taylor except for reading a couple of e-mails that were forwarded to the whole group. I did much of the research into Immanion which informed our group's decision to decline Taylor's offer. The information I found at that time is why I'm not inclined to view it as a significant press. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are these interactions relevant to this discussion? Why is the subject of an article involved in this discussion even peripherally? -THB 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not give evidence of notability. The fact that he is an author and is married is irrelevant. Appears to be an attempt at marketing. Fails WP:BIO & WP:COI. -THB 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It would be like writing a book on physics, one that sells almost not at all, and then go around claiming to be a Notable Physicist. Pretty common thought, in the world of the occult.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notable company (but cleanup). -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlstrom[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPAM. This reads like an advertisement and does not provide any verification, with sources or otherwise. Diez2 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Wikipedia isn't the place for advertisements.--SUIT 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom... Spawn Man 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a big company with 5700 employees and annual revenue of 1,552.6 million euros. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete Article needs to be cleaned up - reads too much like an advertisement. Maybe add more about history and a negitive attributes of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markco1 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 20 November 2006
  • Comment. I added another reference. This one deals with job losses in Pennsylvania as a result of Ahlstrom moving production to South Carolina. As well, there is an article about the company in the Finnish Wikipedia at --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a publicly traded company (though I'm not sure which market it's on). Over 5000 employees and annual revenues in the billions of Euros. Also tons of media mentions and third party sources:
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16] --Wafulz 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, just check out the many, many pages of hits on Google News. --Wafulz 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup 150 year old company with over 1.5 Euros in revenue? Seems quite notable to me. Resolute 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources can be found-"sources" cited above and on Google News all seem to be reprinted press releases (many are even still signed "Ahlstrom Corporation". Will change to keep if independent sources are available, but I'm not finding them.Change to keep as independent sources were provided. Still needs ad cleanup though. Seraphimblade 05:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few more:
This is easily one of the larger corporations around. I'm sure if someone spoke Finnish they'd be able to find more sources for us too- I sincerely doubt a 150-year-old listed composites manufacturer making billions of dollars each year has marginal independent sourcing. --Wafulz 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is plainly a notable company. It's a case for ((advert)), not ((subst:afd)). -- Shunpiker 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup: Definitely a notable European company. Ben W Bell talk 08:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup, what more can I say.-- danntm T C 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a listed and known company, though needs a cleanup. STTW (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Finnish company. Article needs some rewriting but isn't the spammiest I've ever seen. -THB 20:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being listed on a stock market indice is a qulifier under WP:CORP. Notable finish company. --Oakshade 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, #REDIRECT [[Search engine optimization]]. Please also do not "vote" on your own nominations, it's not a vote it's a discussion. - 152.91.9.144 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine prominence[edit]

Search engine prominence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a commonly used phrase, and is redundant with the Search engine optimization article. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 00:33, 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 delete, fails A7 and is an obvious A10 attack page. —Cuiviénen 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewstrils[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion WP:AGF means that I'm going to assume that this is a well-meant page as the article itself asserts. Fails WP:V, WP:NEO. Does remarkably badly at google with 3 hits (1 unique)[17]. (I wonder if the admins (yes there are some) at urbandictionary deleted any attempts at adding this to heir site?)This afd is a result of my second try at new page patrol with new, lower, lower,lower standards. In the first, apparently my standards were set too high for speedy delete recommendation tagging. So I bring this gem here. Love the image filename descriptions (jew1, jew2 etc.) Bwithh 00:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you're fine... this was speedy-able, so I've given it a {{db|Attack page, no sources.}} - 152.91.9.144 00:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. thanks. lets see if the admins pass this. I'm still in the middle of getting a feel for what the rough boundaries for new page patrol are Bwithh 00:51, 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 A7 et al. ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Self-Promotion Audio Web Services[edit]

List of Self-Promotion Audio Web Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have no idea what this is, the history doesn't really help, but it looks like spam and/or listcruft. (My best guess is that it's a list of sites where you can promote your own music.) Crystallina 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This edit seems to have the highest quality the article ever got, but it still looks like listcruft to me. (Plus, what exactly is a Self-Promotion Audio Web Service?) —Cuiviénen 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom... Spawn Man 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. SkierRMH,03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. This seems to be, in it's current state, just a bit of spam for one website and hasn't been touched since nomination. So tagged. MER-C 05:34, 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 06:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG Astrological Association[edit]

BG Astrological Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Proposed deletion contested by author. Original reason: lack of content. Article now has more content, though still doesn't seem to assert important or significance, and is worded like an advertisement. – Gurch 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Hard to tell, since it is a foreign organization and this google search turns up only Bulgarin language sites (though onle 2 of them!!!) and this similar search using the actual name of the article turns up NADA. If there were MORE references to notability, I might vote keep, but I cannot find ANYTHING out there to help this article out. --Jayron32 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete judging by the article, serious lack of notability. ViridaeTalk 11:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is easily superior to the slight stub about the American Federation of Astrologers. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not the quality of the article that's in question (it certainly isn't as bad as the UK AA). It's the notability of the organisation. On that question: exactly 4 google hits from less than 4 different sites, even counting very similar results as separate; no apparent third-party coverage. Not an encyclopedic subject at present. Sam Clark 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is - in Bulgaria or in UK. There is more than 80 results i this [google search]. - Bulgarian astrological association, but in bulgarian language. I am sorry, but how many of you know bulgarian? I think that Wikipedia is the right place, where people can learn something about this organization, in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrologbg (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. 1. Please sign your posts using four tildes. 2. 80 ghits doesn't add up to notability either. 3. 'Astrological association is astrological asociacition, no matter where it is' is not an argument for keeping the article, or even a reply to anything I or anyone has said. The issues are notability and verifiability. I'm sure the organisation is a fine one, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether it should have a wikipedia article. 4. You're quite right that I speak no Bulgarian, but that isn't an argument for keeping this article. 5. Am I right that your username indicates a connection with the organisation? If so, that also raises the problem of conflict of interest. Yours, Sam Clark 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks for your comment. yes, I am from Bulgaria, and that is why I know something about this organization. In Wiki has an article Astrological associations and there was only one link who redirect to UK Astrological asociaction. Now there is two articles. And must have many more. And I dont understand why someone want in this article Astrological associations to have only ONE organization - UK. And I think that this is not right. Astrologbg 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Astrologbg[reply]
  • reply to Astrologbg 1) before you assume people are descriminating against you, please read the following policy: assume good faith. Do so by clicking on the blue link. Understand that we are discussing this deletion proposal dispassionately and without prejudice. 2) At issue is not the existance of the association, its nature, why it exists, or even what it does. None of those are criteria for the worthiness of the article. We need references in reliable sources to show that the article contains information that is verifiable and that the subject matter is notable. I have linked words in this reply to specific wikipedia policies by which we are judging this article. If you wish to keep the article, improve it, and I and probably many others would be willing to change our vote. 3) The existance of other deletable articles at wikipedia do NOT mean that this one should be kept. If, in your exploration of wikipedia, you have found other articles YOU think are unworthy, please nominate them for deletion. But the existance of such articles has no bearing on this one. Bring it up to standard as is spelled out in the above policies, or let it go. 4) The existance of other articles about similar associations articles here means nothing. They may also be deletable, or they may have reliable references to the information they contain. Understand that deleting an article has NOTHING to do with what the article is about, only with whether the information contained therin is notable, verifiable, and reliable. Please click the polices I have linked to learn more so you can make the article better. --Jayron32 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - astrology is bilge, but this is a reasonable and well-constructed article about an organisation that peddles bilge. Pete Fenelon 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Posey[edit]

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

proposed deletion contested by author. Some additional information has been added, but I'm still not sure the subject is notable. – Gurch 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it Brad Posey is renowned for being the #1 in his field and is very recognizable. So much so that people have tried to kill him. Clearly notable. Who cares if it isn't your thing? He's referenced in the Rex article on this same site. He should be included.
  • Weak Keep It seems like an okay article... It could be worked on, though.--SUIT 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN enough... Spawn Man 02:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - filming somebody while they take thier melvin to the circus is not enough to garner an encyclopedia entry -- wtfunkymonkey 03:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, so gay porn is not my thing, so I hadn't much prior knowledge on this subject. However, a quick google search turns up: an IMDB listing, this review from a third-party source, and numerous other reviews and locations to buy his videos. They are in wide release, and reviewed in the press. If we are to view this solely within the field of gay porn, he is notable. We cannot take the premise that he is non notable JUST because he shoots gay porn videos. --Jayron32 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs work but in respect of the Simon Rex controversy he is clearly notable. Orderinchaos78 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Edison 17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Jayron. Should be sourceable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to KEEP
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search for "Brad Posey" provides 929 hits, none of which assert notability. Inclusion in IMDb alone is not an establishment of notability, as you can find a page for anyone who was "Guy On Street 5", and their edatorial requirements for notability are pretty much nil. The references to the tempcity.com website are also unsuitable for determining notability -- its a friggin fan forum for crying out loud. They've never been acceptable for it. Nothing exists thus far that would meet WP:BIO. Consequentially 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An image uploaded bu the author is marked I am friends with Brad and he gave me this photo. That's what we call conflict of interest. -- RHaworth 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person is notable as an AVN award winner. Yamaguchi先生 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly queasy Keep - just scrapes into notability. WMMartin 16:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Fails WP:COI but subject is notabole. Needs to be rewritten to indicate that his films are gay porn, as a matter of fact. -THB 20:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AVN award winner. --Oakshade 23:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an AVN winner he passes WP:PORNBIO.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Parliament election, 2011[edit]

Scottish Parliament election, 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 2007 election has not even taken place yet. This article has no content and nothing can be added but speculation until the 2007 election occurs. The article really serves no purpose until that election occurs. I believe the usual practice is to have an article about one single upcoming election. —Cuiviénen 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing gainful can be said (apart from the date, which surprises me since British elections at least aren't on a fixed program) at least until after the 2007 poll has occurred and probably for a while thereafter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scotland does have fixed election dates, as do Wales and Northern Ireland (when elections happen in NI at all!). Of course, the government can still be brought down early. —Cuiviénen 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there we go. I was wondering what the new thing I was going to learn today was, and that's it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hey, I can expand the article! I predict a party will win! Spawn Man 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A prize for that man! BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A party will win? Nonsense. The planned elections will be disrupted by the Scottish War of Independence (June 2009 - September 2012). Since most of Scotland will be devastated by the Hogmanay Brigades' "scorched heath" policy, the only real winners will be the grouse. — Haeleth Talk 22:28, 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, Keep, Delete, No consensus, Delete ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Copeland[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO Otto4711 16:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Also nominated:[reply]


  • Comment: I'll agree with you in that, for most of the ladies you listed, the articles as they stand right now do not state why they are notable. The only exception I believe could be Tammy Plante, as I think her role in the Virtual Bartender, combined with her Playboy appearances, just might be enough to render her notable. However, I think you should be putting each girl up in her own individual AFD, and as a result, I'm not casting a vote at this time. Tabercil 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on Gabrielle Copeland - the other articles need their own delete pages.--Hatch68 22:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom except Tammy Plante; posing nude for any of the multitudes of Playboy publications does not bestow notability (and Plante is the only one to have accomplished something more). Being the centerfold brings notability, but that's because those women are the central focus of an entire issue, the role of the centerfold and of Playboy Playmates has immense pop culture significance, and the magazine focuses on the identity of the Playmates (and on remembering their identity even years later) in a manner not true of the legions of comparably anonymous women who pose for the "special editions." Postdlf 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that "Delete all per nom except for Plante and Hammer," about whom I'm somewhere between a "neutral" and a "weak keep." Postdlf 15:07, 20 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 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Relevant notability criteria are at WP:PORNBIO.. Looks to me like they all meet it, but I may be misinterpreting what "Coed of the Month" means. —Cuiviénen 01:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no article to explain "Coed of the Month" but based on the Coed of the Week category description it appears to me that it doesn't qualify as an "award" as defined by the WP:PORNBIO criteria. It seems more like a bunch of women are presented each week on the Playboy Cyber Club website and the users pick one for the week and then the month. Someone with more familiarity than I with the website may have more insight but I don't believe that being named Coed of the Week or Month establishes notability in and of itself. Otto4711 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (at a loss!) - Yes the articles do seem to fail WP:BIO, but as Cuivienen pointed out, they do meet WP:PORNBIO. So I'm at a loss as what to do, as they meet, but don't meet the rules... Thoughts anyone? Spawn Man 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jaime Hammer, neutral on the others. Hammer has appeared on the cover (either alone or as one of three models) of Playboy Special Editions magazines three times between 2004 and 2006. All three times she was identified by name (full name twice, first name once) on the cover itself. This implies that she has some name recognition and celebrity at least within the context of the Playboy magazine readership, as opposed to being some fly-by-night model who is never heard from again. Although she is not an actress or television personality, her repeated appearances on magazine covers should be considered "multiple features in popular culture publications" which would qualify an actress for an article under WP:BIO. The other four models may also warrant articles but I don't have sufficient evidence to make a case for them. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copeland, Leigh, and Thornton, Keep Hammer and Plante. I was convinced by Hammer's multiple covers and by Plante's appearances for beer.com, etc. The others seem pretty minor. --Brianyoumans 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. Gotta love the infoboxes - measurements and the works. :| Orderinchaos78 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Jaime Hammer and Tammy Plante. A definite keep on Hammer, but a very weak keap on plante, as I'm unsure that the ad she appeared in is good enough to warrant an article for her (and not just include her as a subsection of the article about the ad campaign) Bjelleklang - talk 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hammer per 18 appearances in a national magazine of wide circulation, including 2 covers. That is greater notabiility than 90% of the bio articles of living persons. Delete the rest.Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Note: when you nominate a large number of different articles, you make the task for the closing admin difficult. Edison 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's such a problem then there probably shouldn't be a procedure for nominatingmultiple articles. These were all nominated together because they're the contents of a particular nn category. Otto4711 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *scratches head* Why merge? Tabercil 01:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.. Aksi_great (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asshat[edit]

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

unsourced attribution of derogatory term - seems like an attack page Ronnotel 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please...LGF is no more an attack page than any other on the net. It's quite tame compared to many I've seen in the past. If anyone thinks LGF is an attack page, maybe they should check out the numerous Indymedia sites or DailyKos. Then they can get back to me... John1schn 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — John1schn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    • I believe the nominator was calling the article, not Little Green Footballs, an "attack page." --Slowking Man 01:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. (Heh). Ronnotel 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP IT gdonovan````
  • Delete, dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing but a personal attack and a dic-def (already at Wiktionary). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'cuz I'm an asshat. Danny Lilithborne 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another slang term. Do not delete. — Brunochojnacki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • If something is "just another slang term", then it likely fails WP:NEO, hence the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary, unless some compelling cultural significance can be established that merits an article. --Slowking Man 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. wikipediatrix 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this piece of assshat - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a slang dic. ike9898
  • Strong Delete, per above. Naconkantari 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and if anyone disagrees they're an mega-asshat. SkierRMH,02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I touch myself, I want you to touch me. Xihr 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When I feel down, I want you above me. Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - !vote containing a personal attack was removed. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect - has already been transwikied (18 months ago), and I don't think an encyclopedic article can really be created, but deleting will probably only lead to a definition type page being created again in the future. I don't see this as an attack page, though. Mishatx 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this stayed, would it be long before tub of goo and like crap found its way here? Caknuck 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is well established that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and neologisms need sources, and this article has neither.-- danntm T C 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or move to Wiki Dictionary and keep a link. The term (derogatory) is in fairly common use, and deletion will merely result in its recreation in a few weeks or months. I think it was invented by Rachael Lucas, but have only my memory for that citation. htom 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, common use is irrelevant, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Xtifr tälk 10:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to discourage recreation. The article is merely a dicdef, but if deleted will most likely be recreated at some point. Movementarian (Talk) 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if it's recreated, it can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Or it can be salted to prevent recreation. Xtifr tälk 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not Urban dictionary. ViridaeTalk 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it......all forms of verbage used to compliment or insult people are words in the language that we must have reference to and explanations for. Doesn't matter who's side you are on......but only an asshat would want this deleted...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:16:49 — 205.206.112.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
  • Delete and transwiki to Wikidictionary - I use the word myself, but it's not something that needs an article. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Park3r 17:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very notable term with 1,120,000 Google hits. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been in Wiktionary since 2004. Uncle G 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn (Delete) Could be considered a personal attack to a group, derrogatory, I am a teen and never hear it, Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 3:33 pm ET NOvember 20 2006
  • Delete-while many of those participating in this discussion are providing a perfect illustration of this term's meaning, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Seraphimblade 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef, neologism, does not come close to meeting the requirements of Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologisms. TheronJ 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef, WP:NEO drseudo (t) 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia's requirements for articles regarding neologismsJasper23 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article could be had on Asshat, but this isn't it. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment why the notice about ballot stuffing? The blog doesn't advocate any stuffing, and no stuffing has been going on. Andjam 01:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, low-profile neologism; not enough encyclopedic information about it to support anything beyond a dicdif. --Aquillion 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not pass WP:NEO. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 06:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Christian School (Williston, North Dakota)[edit]

Trinity Christian School (Williston, North Dakota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable religious school that fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 01:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Private Schools Report" entry It appears to be a K-12 school in a small town (13,000 residents) in ND with 256 pupils and has been in the local media in the town. Orderinchaos78 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a private K-12 school. There are tons of articles about non-notable schools. Expand a bit. Okay...after numerous comment, delete. Sr13 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Care to name a few? Shimeru 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's not a valid argument whatsoever. Please see WP:INN- just because something exists on WP does not inherently give something else the right to exist. -- Kicking222 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although searching is somewhat tricky because this is a somewhat common name for schools, I am unable at the moment to find any non-trivial reliable sources with which to expand this article. As such, it appears to fail WP:SCHOOLS3. Will check Lexis-Nexis tomorrow and see whether anything turns up there. Shimeru 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, doesn't pass any of WP:SCHOOL, not even the highly controversial 50 year test (which I personally oppose in any case). Just more schoolcruft. Xtifr tälk 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointed out by Xtifr, no assertion of notability and no evidence of notability. ViridaeTalk
  • Delete per Xtifr. -- Kicking222 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xtifr. No assertion or evidence of notability. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school in north dakota!!! Audiobooks 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any evidence to show that this is the case? --Kuzaar-T-C- 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SCHOOLS; WP:BEEFSTEW=2. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither a school prospectus nor a directory of schools, and there is no verifiable information here which does not fall into those categories. — Haeleth Talk 22:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth and nom. JoshuaZ 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete absence of reliable third-party sources on which to build a decent article. Pascal.Tesson 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 07:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xtifr. I will give school articles the benefit of the doubt a lot, but I can't find any reason to doubt this school is non-notable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least merge with town article. One of you Wp delete fundies should at least do that. Albatross2147 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you have any reason to keep this other than accusing editors of being "Wp delete fundies"? JoshuaZ 02:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cuiviénen 02:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Constitution[edit]

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

Neologism. Just really somebody's idea. Maybe a neat idea, but nontheless not yet an idea that has had an impact on the world. I think that there are many concepts you could put wiki in front of, and create a neat new idea (wiki porn? wiki surgery?) ike9898 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't assert notability anywhere, no attempt to meet WP:WEB. Old, too. Speedied. —Cuiviénen 02:30, 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 - a neutral referenced article could possibly be written on this, but this isn't it. If anybody wants it copied to their userspace to work on it I can do that, but this article doesn't belong in mainspace as it stands. Yomanganitalk 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

York Rainbow Peace Camp[edit]

York Rainbow Peace Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomination for Deletion Fails WP:V. May fail WP:ORG even if verified. Zero google hits for "York Rainbow Peace Camp"[18]. 25 hits (none from independent,reliable sources and the 25 includes false positives) for "York Peace Camp" [19]. Zero hits for both these phrases in Factiva news database (which includes all major UK national/regional newspapers). Bwithh 02:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - not notable, no sources. Probably could be speedied - wtfunkymonkey 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... SkierRMH,07:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE Please see below for a statement on the article from its creator, the interestingly named User:weallpoo, which I have copied and pasted from the article talk space Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a wikipedia article today on York Rainbow Peace Camp, which I consider to have been the indicator of an astonishingly rapid rise in the amount and depth of anti-capitalist militancy in York, England in the year 2003. Prior to this, York could be considered somewhat politically apathetic, especially in terms of direct action and popular engagement in politics outside of the big 3 political parties.

The article is already being considered for deletion. I hope to defend its inclusion in wikipedia, as follows:

It is unsurprising that York Rainbow Peace Camp is not mentioned in the online media searches which have been conducted, as the "official" name of the camp was "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp" (I omitted the word "Village" in the title by accident), but the name never quite caught on anyway, and it was usually referred to locally as "the peace camp", since there was no other peace camp nearby.

Also, we at the camp scarcely saw it as a priority to woo the corporate-owned mass media. However, York's dominant local paper, "The Evening Press" did give us a surprising amount of coverage, and a search for peace camp in their archive ( http://www.thisisyork.co.uk/archive/ ) brought up 9 relevant hits;

22nd Apr 2003.

There was also a hit about a more recent peace camp in York, when Archbishop John Sentamu held a marathon prayer vigil in a blue tent inside York Minster, at the time of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. This is dated 15th Aug 2006. No evidence has been found that he was directly inspired by the events of 2003, but it could be postulated that a tradition may be emerging in the city.

Also, plugging a search for "peace hotel" into the same archive search engine will bring up more articles from the newspaper, as will searches for the names "Lara Saunders", "Ruby Robinson" and "Sky Sunshine Robinson", 3 activists who died tragically during the period in which the peace camp was active.

If my article is allowed to remain on wikipedia, I hope that I might be permitted to dedicate it to them.

Anyhow, thanks to whoever suggested the deletion, as having to support my article's inclusion has inspired me to find additional sources which can be used to bring the article up to scratch.

- Rene Thomas / "weallpoo", [email protected]

    • Note I copied the above statement from User:weallpoo from the article talkspace Bwithh 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Followup Zero hits on google for "York Rainbow Village Peace Camp"[20]; zero hits on Factiva. Bwithh 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reference above to the activists killed seems to be about a fatal fire (which did not occur at the camp)[21] Bwithh 07:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


i was at the York Peace Camp and the article is accurate. The local newspaper references should support this. i have some photos of the Peace hotel i would like to put on the page, so would like it to remain. i do not think that because this was a real event with real people and not televised or in a previous book it should be deleted. it is more valid than much of the stuff on wicipedia which is pretty irrelevant and petty.

i think the author has overemphasised the role of people with mental health problems, as only a few people at the camp and hotel were such. so i would only recomend a little editiing.

  • Keep Database and search engine hits while often very helpful are NOT the ultimate test. Also this is an example where entering only a few specific search terms creates a misleading result, try "York Peace Camp" and you will find more sources, a little creativity goes a long way. Furthermore the sources provided of articles written by the York Press are valid sources. Therefore this article meets the WP:V requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did try "York Peace Camp". It's in my original nomination with an assessment of the hits produced (a little creativity didn't go very far in this case). The York Press is a local city newspaper. Factiva doesn't include this but does include the Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post, the local regional or county newspapers, as well as the Press Association Regional Newswire for Yorkshire and Humberside. No hits for the search terms from these sources showed up (there are hits for protests and peace camps against US activities at military bases RAF Menwith Hill and RAF Fylingdales but none for the subject of the article). I don't think coverage by the local city newspaper is sufficient for encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I did not see the "York Peace Camp" search reference before, I still maintain that the Google search is not the definative test of either verifiability or notability. However your opinion that local city newspapers are insufficient is not supported by Wikipedia policies. Under WP:V the requirements for sources are that they are preferably in English, that they are not of dubious reliability and they are not self-published. Under WP: N, "what constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad, including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, published reports by consumer watchdog organizations and government agencies." The York Press meets these requirements. Ratherhaveaheart 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the articles for deletion process is the look at the arguments rather than the votes, to make sure that the WP:ORG reason for deletion is addressed, the proposed policy states "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." and "Notability can be asserted for organizations through: Inclusion in third party published materials. A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject" Here the York Press articles provide the reliable third party source which is verification and notability. Just in case this debate starts to turn to the ad hoc arguments I have seen in the past I would like to state my independence, this was my first exposure to York Peace camp. I participate in the articles for deletion debates which I think provide illustrative examples of the application of WP policies. Also those that support my philosophy that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide references for research, so if the article would be useful for research than I generally vote to Keep. Sorry for being long winded Ratherhaveaheart 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence is provided by the 2003 Yorkagainstthewar webpage, which should convince doubters that if this is a hoax it must be one that was put in motion at least 3 years ago!

May I thank icathryn (who was at the peace camp doing daily news flyers (only hardcopy, I think), and Ratherhaveaheart for their support and for recognising that this is important to me, and to hundreds of people I don't even know how to contact any more. I would also put to Bwithh that it is not only the bigshot national media who can validly document an event. If you have further misgivings, why not add a wikipage on "The Great Petty Peace Camp Hoax", or why not email

The daughter of celebrity astrologer Jonathan Cainer also stayed and worked at the peace camp, so he may remember it too. There are email links on his website ( http://www.cainer.com/ )

  • Comment 1) I personally don't think this is a hoax (someone else added that tag) - just unencyclopedic and having insufficient sourcing/evidence of notability 2) Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, as per WP:NOT Bwithh 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but edit heavily to remove the irrelevant, POV and tangential material (about 90% of the present article). And change the name to York peace camp, which seems to be a better-known label. Definitely not a hoax! Gnusmas 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not nominated on grounds of being a suspected hoax. Bwithh 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the hoax tag now, since it was never explained by the editor who placed it there and seems to be confusing people about the afd Bwithh 23:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:V isn't now a problem, given current sourcing, though article still needs some cleanup (and the "dedication" isn't allowed). JamesMLane t c 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sinlge-sourced article = WP:NPOV cannot be ensured. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the basis for this argument, I have read the WP:NPOV numerous times and I just don't see it. Ratherhaveaheart 18:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A single source presents a single POV by definition. ~ trialsanderrors 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incorrect statement. A single newspaper article may present a number of different viewpoints. Furthermore Wp: NPOV is not about having one viewpoint it is about having the correct unbiased neutral viewpoint, as long as the source provides that than it is not in violation of the policy. Ratherhaveaheart 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
about having the correct unbiased neutral viewpoint ← Yeah, that is missing from the article too. ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom, plus the way it's wrtten actually makes it look like a vanity article. Plus 0 results for Google, Yahoo, or MSN. Wizardman 00:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Montco 02:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable organization. Lack of coverage by multiple, third-party published sources. Also, serious WP:OR and WP:POV issues which cannot be properly researched because of lack of sources. -- Satori Son 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as non-notable online retailer failing WP:CORP. —Doug Bell talk 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altrec.com[edit]

Altrec.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Found tagged as speedy spam. The text is indeed spammy and badly needs cleanup if it's kept, but the article (and talk page) asserts notability in a not-entirely-adcopy-like way. Thought this merited more discussion. Opabinia regalis 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Multiple news references make this look at least mildly notable, though it needs a cleanup, especially of the linkspam at the bottom. —Cuiviénen 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional weak delete should be deleted if there are no references are in the article by the end of the afd discussion. i kan reed 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails most, if not all, points of WP:CORP - wtfunkymonkey 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete bloody spammy, needs massive cleanup and cites, if not, delete it. SkierRMH,07:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wtfunkymonkey. 1ne 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - spam, this reads like ad copy. WP:CORP applies I think. Pete Fenelon 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD A1 and A7, and WP:SNOW as sexist twaddle. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do men buy terrible presents?[edit]

Why do men buy terrible presents? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page looks like someone's POV essay instead of encyclopedic content. I think there's no chance of this article ever becoming NPOV or encyclopedic. Scobell302 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. WTF is this garbage? -- Kicking222 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, POV. No remote chance of an encyclopedic article with this title. (Though I can agree with Kicking's phrasing also.) Fan-1967 04:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure it's a G1 (nonsense), but it's definitely a personal essay. —Cuiviénen 04:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic in any way. Dalassa 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR - Mig (Talk) 04:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Buf7579 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Orderinchaos78 04:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this already over at BJAODN or somewhere. Herostratus 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pure stupidity on Wikipedia. Meets criteria G1 and A1 for speedy deletion. Sr13 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per nom, and it's missing my favorite reason... because they're insensitive gits... SkierRMH,07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to buy this article the gift of delete. --Folantin 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be obvious why really. Next week: Why do people make up stupid articles? MartinDK 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Serves no purpose in an encyclopedia other than to diminish its quality and annoy about 50% of the readers. Keesiewonder 12:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and Speedy Delete this one. This reads like someone’s personal thoughts in a diary or a blog. Watch as this vanishes into oblivion… JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 13:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G1 and A1 criteria. Hello32020 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete even though I received a freaking VACUUM for my last birthday. Needless to say, somebody else has been doing the vacuuming ever since. I'm not the maid. --Charlene 15:28, 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 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ewen[edit]

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

Stuart Ewen recently wrote articles for himself and his wife, Elizabeth Ewen. He looks to be maybe notable; she doesn't. Self-written (or, in this case, spouse-written) articles are a red flag, for starters. She doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. Two of her four books are collaborations with her husband. The one book she wrote alone, "Life and Culture on the Lower East Side, l890-1930" looks like your typical academic tome. For an academic with a 30-year career her publishing record looks average at best. Ewens's claim to have "significantly defined the fields of American Studies" is unsourced and seems unlikely given her publication record. Herostratus 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She has 4 books on Amazon over a 21-year span: [22] However, the article is desperately in need of a rewrite. Orderinchaos78 04:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:PROF, lacks any sources, and the language seems to aim pretty well towards the target of vanity, and seeming that it appears to be written by her husband 1.3 of WP:COI seems pretty applicable here. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COI as per nom. SkierRMH,07:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conflict of interest, something User:Stuartewen has been warned about before he started writing the article. --Lijnema 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Memmke 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even an impartial, well-written article (which this isn't) would fail WP:PROFTEST. -- Fan-1967 13:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her position of "Distinguished Teaching Professor" at a major university university establishes notability in the academic world. She has written numerous scholarly books which have received lengthy and favorable reviews in scholarly journals and the New York Times. She has also published numerous articles in scholarly journals. Edit boldly and do any needed rewrites. How on earth does the fact that she and her husband co-authored books make him notable but not her? The book with several reviews ( I only added a few of them to demonstrate notability) was not co-written with hubby. Edison 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did edit the page a lot. I moved stuff around and made the Publications section. But all I could do was re-arrange; I can't pull notable achievements for her out of the air. I would dispute that we ought to have articles on Distinguished Teaching Professors as a default, and more than on every lawyer who made partner at a major law firm or whatever. And SUNY is large but it's not CalTech or Harvard either. Her husband is notable (maybe) because he has other accomplishments of his own, writing several books on his own including one that apparently made a little noise and doing a bunch of other stuff on his own, thus garnering a few interviews in third-party publications. As far as I can tell, she's written exactly one book on her own: Immigrant Women in the Land of Dollars: Life and Culture on the Lower East Side 1890-1925, which is published by the New Feminist Library, and that sure sounds like the kind of dry academic research made into a book that all tenured professors are expected to write as a matter of course. Herostratus 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if rewritten. Articles written with an apparent of conflict of interest should be slashed back to a stub in any case. However, I think there might be enough third-party sources to build a small article. I don't mind putting the article on the clock and revisiting an AfD in a few months if these references don't materialize and if the article is as poor as it currently is. Also, the innuendo that co-authoring a book with one's husband is essentially enjoying a free ride is shameful. Pascal.Tesson 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge into Stuart Ewen. They don't both need an article and he appears to be the only one of the two that meets notability (and that barely). Also conflict of interest problems-if they were that notable someone besides them would be writing that article. Seraphimblade 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposed guideline at WP:PROF is too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - WP:NOT but collectively they probably have enough 'notability' to count. Pete Fenelon 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for both of them fails WP:COI. Self-authored bios are repugnant to the purposes of Wikipedia. Surely if they were notable some brown-nosing graduate student would have written an article about his or her favorite professor. -THB 20:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book reviews establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 11:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agapito Conchu[edit]

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

Neutral bump from speedy. Different version named Agapito Concho previously deleted via prod. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 04:38Z

  • Keep. Article exists in Tagalog, and director is listed on IMDB: Lacking a subject-matter expert, there are grounds to believe that this is a historically notable figure in Filipino cinema. -- Shunpiker 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with some editing -- wtfunkymonkey 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Wikipedia article is not a reliable source, even in Tagalog. Only one skimpy mention in IMDB does not establish notability. There is no source for the statement he directed all the other movies. With references, the article could be re-created. If references for notability were added, the article could be kept. As is, there is not enough demonstrated and documented notability. There is no presumption of notability absent evidence of it.Edison 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  07:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep obviously, pioneer in area. (1/2 a dozen films, are you joking?) obviously it's going to take time/difficult to source in english (Please read WP:BIAS). also articles don't get deleted for lacking refs, they get tagged w/ {{references}}  ⇒ bsnowball  16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he had been from Europe or the U.S. there would be more references. In some cases a shortage of references does not prove non-notability. -THB 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Mondiello[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. If the Pokemon stuff was notable there'd be external coverage. (There isn't.) The rest is Youtubecruft. Crystallina 04:44, 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. --Daniel Olsen 06:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PINK PANDA[edit]

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

No evidence provided to meet WP:MUSIC. Verifiability problems, check ghits. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 04:49, 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 redirect to French Kiss (TV series). Yomanganitalk 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Kiss (television program)[edit]

No assertion of notability. Not much context either. Contested prod. MER-C 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to French Kiss (TV series) (same show and "xxx (TV Series)" seems to be the standard TV listing format). There's no reason to delete this current long-running national music video show. --Oakshade 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Oakshade. The show has been running (continuously?) since the late 80's. Caknuck 07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect per above. Movementarian (Talk) 07:07, 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. --Daniel Olsen 07:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Steering Committee[edit]

Anarchy Steering Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Internet self-distributed music group, fails all 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC for ensembles. No national chart hits, certified recordings, tours, or albums on major labels. A few net-popular songs several years ago. Google search brings back lots of hits, but none are non-trivial published works. Delete. MikeWazowski 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Internet hits make them relevant you people really need to get a life. User:Aaronproot (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep the improved article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absent referent[edit]

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

Originally tagged for speedy deletion. I replaced this with a Prod tag as the article asserts some notability. This was then removed by the article's creator, however I think the reason for my prod (lack of notability) still stands. – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete - neologism, 715 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to Neutral - the above concern has been fixed, but it's still unreferenced. MER-C 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism... *Redirect and smerge into The Other. 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) SkierRMH,07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the s/merge with Other is now obsolete, due to expanded context. Please reconsider.
  • Keep - while this may appear to be a neologism, it is in fact a variation of well-established concept of the Other. However, this is a unique enough varient to deserve its own entry. How is the threshold for notability or secondary sources determined? -- Bhuston 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) As mentoned elsewhere, I now feel the suggested s/merge with Other is now obsolete due to expanded context by several contributors. If you previously voted for Delete or s/merge, please reconsider changing to Keep. Thanks! --Bhuston 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two questions to answer: Is this original research? It's original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else other than its inventor and not become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. To demonstrate that it's not original research, we need sources by people other than Adams discussing this concept. If it's not original research, is this a duplicate article? It's a duplicate article if it's just a different name for the same concept. Uncle G 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Now I'm confused. I thought Original Research in the WP context refered to that done by a Wikipedian for the article, which is prohibited by WP policy. This is contradicted by your assertion that it is "original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else...." I think in such a case as you describe, it still may be prohibited, however due to notability. --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I am fairly certain that the phrase was current in deconstructionist literary jargon before it was appropriated by Adams for the idiosyncratic use described here. It comes from the truism that all symbolic discourse includes a sign, a signifier (person using the sign) and a referent. Here it's used as rhetorical dressing for the slight insight that people don't think about live chickens when they eat their McNuggets. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • reply to comment This is quite interesting! It also reminds me of how certain sects of Judiasm use the symbol (sign) G*D to refer to the divine mover, or the sybmol "{}" as the empty set in mathematics. In this context, I would like to assert a strong KEEP and expand the article to include the context you have provided --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and smerge into The Other. Grutness...wha? 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep now. Vastly improved, though still a marginal topic. Good work Bhuston. Grutness...wha? 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into Other, which wants expansion and could use some notes about mathematics and etymology as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mer-C. Keep Lots of sources now attest to the influence of Carol Adams' use of the term in the ethics of the meat industry as well as sweat shop labor and feminism. Apparently it is used in the same sense in other areas. Edison 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improved article -- I have improved the article to address the concerns above. I have included the concept from other realms (mathematics, literature) and included references to the linguistic theory. What do you think? --Bhuston 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Still total original research, still no valid sources for most of its claims, and now even more all over the map in its fuzzy logic. I could probably also find a way to connect the phrase "fried bacon" to the subjects of semantics, literature, ethics, "God", and mathematics, but so what?? wikipediatrix 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fried bacon!? C'mon. That's not fair. Read it again. Bhuston 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are over 200 results from a search at Google Scholar on "absent referent". And I am not at all convinced that a merger into other is appropriate; the two terms do overlap, but I don't believe they are similar enough to be appropriately combined. John Broughton | Talk 14:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 07:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bonen[edit]

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 05:03Z

  • Delete - verifiability issues, check ghits. Also nothing really useful there either. MER-C 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. (His username is even Tombonen...*sigh*) Anthony Rupert 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as logical redirect to famous cyclist Tom Boonen. Fram 06:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and follow Fram's suggestion... SkierRMH,07:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Fram's suggestion. MartinDK 13:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect, and PROTECT THE PAGE - to protect from further immaturity. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 16:56, 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. – Avi 07:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Tonight[edit]

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

Procedural relisting after a "convoluted" close of previous AfD. Original nominations follow:

From the first AfD:

As it turns out, this page was twice speedily deleted before, but since I can't see what was there before, I have no idea if this is substantially the same as before, but it reeks of advertising, and the company is so new that I suspect Wikipedia is not a crystal ball may also be in play.

And from the second AfD:

This article was originally created by single purpose account User:Thesuchman (a name very similar to one of the site founders), and it is an obvious advertisement. This was enough to successfully speedy Evergreens UK, and this article has itself been Speedied twice before. … Even with possibly-valid media mentions, this article is still nothing more than a blatant ad with no prospect of improvement in the forseeable future, and should be removed ASAP.

(Disclaimer: I voted to keep in the first AfD which ended with "no consensus".) Kimchi.sg 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Granted, the site has a number of media mentions, but these seem due more to the publicity-savviness of the site's creators than to any actual newsworthiness of the site itself. There really is nothing whatsoever to the article so far that wouldn't apply to just about every other moderately-sophisticated web-forum out there. Also, the original wording of the article (plus the username of the creator) suggests that it was planted in WP by one of the site-founders as a means of boosting their search profile. I don't want to reward that. --Arvedui
Further comment, if there were even a single detail both notable and unique to the site, such as some well-known cultural or internet phenomenon that originated there or an obviously unique net-subculture that inhabits it, I would probably vote to Keep. But as it's basically a two month old dating/party-promotion site, this seems very unlikely. Also, I'm not calling for a speedy delete here, since those seem to get overturned, though I think the sooner this article is gone, the better. --Arvedui 05:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without being able to see the first discussion, and having no part in it, this still reads like an ad and fails the Crystal Ball test. SkierRMH,07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fails WP:WEB. Two month project hasn't any notability. This should be on Google but not in Wikipedia. Tulkolahten 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources given in the article seem to satisfy WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB and/or any other notability measurement. The two "reliable independent sources" mentioned in the first AfD were a school newspaper and a syndicated column on msnbc.com. Media mentions do not automatically give a subject notability if the subject itself is obviously non-notable. --- RockMFR 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Social networking websites frequently go belly-up. This one was only recently launched and has not yet achieved notability. Get multiple independent mainstream and reliable sources which document its notability and come back in a year or whatever. I do not approvve of using Wikipedia to achieve notability. Edison 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'd like to vote delete, but the article does not currently fail WP:WEB. Whatever sources were in the first nomination were irrelevant, the subject is covered by MAJOR networks (ABC, MSN). --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that WP:WEB is a guideline, not a policy, and also includes a paragraph in the introduction to the effect that "Wikipedians are averse to the use of Wikipedia for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are not advertisements is an official policy of long standing." That is, of course, precisely and completely what this article is, which is the whole problem, major media mentions or not. --Arvedui 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Two delete votes were per WP:WEB, however, which I do not feel it fails, which is why I referenced it. I am going by notability and references asserting notability. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:WEB and other details. In any case, even if it doesn't fail that particular guideline (which I don't necessarily grant in this case due to the nature of the media coverage), don't you think the anti-advertising policy should trump it? (I'm just trying to give you a reason here to do what you said you wanted to do... :-) ) --Arvedui 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It fails point: except for the following: * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. There is not any notable non-trivial published work fulfilling point 1 of WP:WEB. Tulkolahten 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it passes that exact point. "Trivial" in point 1 of WP:WEB refers to "newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." And the articles from the WP:RS MSNBC, Red Herring, AZfamily.com are not media re-prints or press releases (all even cite a reporter). Srictly following WP:WEB guildlines, the published works sources are decisively non-trivial and demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious advertising. How the two months old project can be notable ? How ? Tulkolahten 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of verification of notability from independent reliable sources. I always agree that advert aspects of articles need to be changed. --Oakshade 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I mentioned above, if I could find a single thing worth writing about this website, I would agree and vote Keep. But once you take away all the advertorial aspects (seriously, go read the revision before mine), basically you've got an article that says "Here is a social-networking website that focuses on colleges and universities. It's been up since September. Check out all our media coverage!" That's not an article, and I don't see any prospect of that changing over anything like a reasonable timeframe. Once there's actually something there to write about, we can gladly accept it, but until then, it's an ad and has no place here. --Arvedui 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like with all these kinds of articles, they need to be written in an objective WP:NPOV manner. It's currently not, I agree. I just added an advertising tag, which I'm surprised nobody did when this article first appeared. --Oakshade 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody expected it to survive this long. ;-) The fact it was Speedy-deleted twice may have had something to do with the lack of tag as well. (I'm not clear how it got itself restored, let alone more than once.) As for the content itself--once you strip away the adcruft, what exactly is there left to be NPOV about? I'm just not seeing it. And I say that as someone who tends towards inclusionism. I'm all for an article on the site, once it's actually done something worth writing about (not just gotten a mention on a morning show). Thanks for tagging, tho. --Arvedui 06:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, articles like this one makes Woogle from Wikipedia. Tulkolahten 12:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who posted the first nomination. For the record, the reason it was restored was because after the initial no consensus, I asked to see what the two prior versions of the article were. (see my request to W.marsh[23] and my talk page). -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The verification of notability from WP:RS appears present. --Oakshade 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising for new social network. The fact that it has succeeded in getting a few media mentions does not make it notable: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site dedicated to regurgitating press releases and hyping the latest Web 3.0 buzz. If this social network actually succeeds, Wikipedia will still be here to receive an article about it, but right now? Too soon. Delete now without prejudice to recreation if the subject turns out in retrospect to be a notable one. — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the relevant standard. If it reads spammy, edit it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How, exactly? "Here is a social-networking website that focuses on colleges and universities. It was founded by two guys and has been up since September. Check out all its media coverage!" That's an article? There's nothing else to say. Anyway, it meets the relevant guideline while contradicting the no-ad policy. I think the latter obviously trumps the former. --Arvedui 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The media mentions make it meet WP:WEB. I don't think the article has to contradict our "no ad policy," which is the point - it's easily possible to make an article that meets the notability standards, so that's why I say keep it. If it reads spammy, edit those parts out, and voila. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was created by a single-purpose user account under a name that suggests it was one of the site-founders themselves putting it in for the express purpose of advertising their (then-nationally-nonexistant) website. It's an ad by definition, and always has been. Cut that out and there's nothing left. --Arvedui 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, whether the account that made it is here for a single purpose or not is irrelevant. The article should exist or not based on its merits as a subject, nothing more and nothing less, and we have various notability standards to help with that. If we cut the advertising and replace it with neutral language about the site, and we have at least a viable, verifiable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine I'm going to convince you to change your mind here, as I've never seen anyone to date manage to convince you of anything you hadn't already decided on... that aside, by all means, demonstrate what you're talking about and edit the page appropriately. If it still seems worth keeping at the end, I might even change my vote. --Arvedui 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is useful content, although it could use some polishing to be more NPOV. Unfocused 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful for what please ? I am trying to find why this is encyclopedic. Tulkolahten 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am having a very hard time figuring out why people seem to be ignoring the fact that this article was placed in WP as a blatant ad (a particularly egregious one at that...) or how this case differs in any real way from the Evergreens UK article, which was quickly and uncontroversially speedied for committing identical wiki-sins as this one has (single-purpose user account/website operator placing own site in WP for ad purposes) despite being a page which could easily be argued as far more informative and better written than this one has ever been, or will likely ever be. This seems highly unfair, and no one arguing to Keep seems willing to talk about it.
Is a fluff-piece interview on the Today Show *really* so authoritative that it grants a license to spam, even if in watered-down NPOV language? WP's value to article-spammers as a source of high Google pagerank should not go unconsidered, NPOV wording or not. If we keep this one, we only encourage more of the same. --Arvedui 07:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnafilia[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:WEB, and WP:COI, as described on Talk:Ragnafilia --Sigma 7 05:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Reese[edit]

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

A few very minor assertions of notability: Selected 209th in 2003 NHL draft (but went to college instead); captain of the Harvard University hockey team, which is all very nice, but for one thing Harvard is not exactly an athletic power; and a top player in the North American Hockey League, which is a "Junior A league", whatever that means, but clearly a minor league. If and when he plays in the NHL, then of course he gets an article, but at this point, they guy seems to not come close to meeting any criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Herostratus 05:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Few players (like Luc Robitaille, for instance) get drafted that low and make an impact in the NHL. Harvard's team isn't ranked in the top 20 by ESPN, but they do have a strong program. Either way, he still has a way to go before satisfying WP:BIO. Caknuck 06:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until moves to some level of notierity in field SkierRMH,07:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Folantin 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, Harvard have a decent hockey program and he seems to be one of their best players right now, but maybe this should just be recreated when he is further along in his career. Recury 16:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - non-notable. Moreschi 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No way to know if he'll even pursue a hockey career once he has a Harvard diploma. If he does, and makes the NHL, recreate then. Fan-1967 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not a pro player, and shouldn't have a page until he becomes one. And the article really doesn't need to let us know what final club he's in. On the other hand, Harvard won the NCAA championship in men's hockey in 1989, and has been a contender a number of times. Reese's coach, Ted Donato, was the tournament MVP in '89. Darkspots 23:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently not notable. Tulkolahten 11:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting Factor[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. One self-recorded and -released EP. "Sam Serinsky is now also in the line up of The Dave Weiner Band, the guitar player of Steve Vai's touring band The Breed." Dave Weiner gets minor notability by the Steve Vai association, but to transfer that notability then one stage further is taking it a bit too far. Also nominating: Sam Serinsky (the lead singer) Fram 06:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) -[reply]

  • Delete both Obvious vanity. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination seems to be lacking, well, a nomination. So: non-notable band, WAY under notability requirements. Long detailed article with pictures, though - nice try. Delete --Brianyoumans 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: actually, it seems like several entries, including the original nomination, got deleted, possibly by accident - I have restored them from the history. --Brianyoumans 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete for Serinsky as well; he has some claims to notability, but they are weak and don't seem to be verifiable from the references given. --Brianyoumans 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both "The CD is self produced and was recorded in the living room of Ryan's parents house." Well, I guess that technically means they're not a garage band. :) Fails each and every criterion in WP:BAND. Xtifr tälk 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added notability " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.26.141.37 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC). — 144.26.141.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment After some effort, I discovered that the "national tour" that Serinsky was part of was five dates in late July in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois. He was part of Dave Weiner's backing band, which didn't sound like it was a permanent thing, but instead a group put together for this short tour. (See here, under June 20th.) --Brianyoumans 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sam Serinsky is in the permanent lineup of the band and they have a gig in NYC in december with Vernan Ried of Living Color. They plan to go on a Euro tour next year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.26.140.205 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC). — 144.26.140.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The question was not, "will they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability someday?" The question was "do they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability now?" And I'm afraid the answer still seems to be no. Oh, and in case nobody has mentioned it, Verifiability is a potential issue too. And Reliable sources. Xtifr tälk 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Avi 07:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Zizmor[edit]

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

2nd nom. I believe first AfD was wrongly decided.

Zizmor is a NN dermatologist. Advertises a lot on the subway, so is well known due to weird name and ads plastered in every other train car, but otherwise completely fails the multiple non-trivial published works test. He's just a doctor in Manhattan. - crz crztalk 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources cited in article, very little notariaty outside of being 'that guy on the subway signs' in NYC. Very few g-hits that are relevant. Article doesn't read like WP:SPAM or WP:VAIN but I don't think there's any point to him having an article. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, The New Yorker found him notable enough to write an article about him [24], so did Pulitzer Prize winner Dan Barry at the New York Times [25] (free preview). Another article about him here [26]. All of this plus his face is staring at every New Yorker who rides the subway (probably makes Angelyne jealous). --Oakshade 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I basically said above, all this coverage is cute, but trivial. - crz crztalk 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I would argue the subject easily passes WP:BIO and the published works are not trivial, your opinion of the subject being trivial might not be contended, actually, and alot of people might find something like this interesting. Even "trivial" subjects have a home in WP (Angelyne cited above is an excellent example). I think write-ups by two of the most prestigious publications in the US is quite a good case for verification on its interest value. --Oakshade 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)... (additional comment), In WP:BIO, "trivial coverage" refers to "newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Under WP:BIO's definition, the articles cited are decisively non-trivial. --Oakshade 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for the city's two most important publications (sorry Wall Street Journal) to feature. Caknuck 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how he meets the criteria in WP:BIO. Just because he is a nice bit of trivia for native New Yorkers doesn't mean that he is notable. What has he done to make himself remembered in the field of dermatology other than spending a lot on advertising? Movementarian (Talk) 11:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. He's indeed not notable in the field of dermatology. He is however, apparently, responsible for a particularly famous advertising campaign, so the article should be (and indeed is) written mainly around that. Morwen - Talk 12:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. How does that satisfy WP:BIO?
  • Strong Keep. Zizmor is famous. It's for something tacky--relentless self-promotion--but I think the argument is being made here that "tacky" equals "trivial to the point of irrelevance". It's very clear the "non-trivial" part of WP:BIO refers to the depth of content written in articles about the subject, not any editor's opinion about the importance of subject, and that's being ignored here. The New Yorker piece shows his cultural notability--as soon as I saw this AfD I remembered that piece. If you search nytimes.com for "Zizmor" you get 23 hits, 20 of which are about him. In an NYT article about Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which you can read on their website, the fact that Zizmor's on the board of the school is worthy of mentioning, and not just in a list. There are several other NYT articles that are features about him. Darkspots 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: I wouldn't go to him, but he's been a pretty common household name (if at least for comedic value) for awhile now. Press coverage meets WP:BIO. --Howrealisreal 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article asserts notability, this notability is backed up, has significant references in reliable print media. Proto::type 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable except for TV ads in one city. Edison 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The central premise of Zizmor's career is that he advertises in the subway, not on television. Maybe he runs TV ads, I don't know--the article and other contributors don't mention television. Here are Edison's contributions. Darkspots 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • quick comment "... in one city."? Do you mean 8 million-plus populated New York City? --Oakshade 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe Edison was referring to the New York metropolitan area instead, with a population of 18,747,320--only a couple million fewer than Australia? Darkspots 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. He could be referring to the 18 million in the New York metro area, but i think he was commenting that there are still 282 million that probably haven't heard of him. He spent loads of money on advertising. Does that mean we are now going to say that every guy that has funny car dealership commercials gets to have an article? Movementarian (Talk) 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder how many funny used-car dealers have New Yorker articles written about them, have New York Times features written about them? I feel like there are three camps of people arguing this AfD. One group says, he meets the requirements of WP:BIO, it is impossible to deny the cultural relevance of America's newspaper of record and, arguably, most award-winning magazine, so the rules are the rules and he passes. Another group says, weak or very weak keep. The article passes, but.... And the last group wants to delete the article, so they ignore the notability rules, or interpret them with a usage of the word "trivial" that ignores WP:NOTABILITY's very clearly stated definition of the word (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail.) I think that there is an inherent bias in most serious Wikipedians--we don't like self-promotion. If you hang around here, and work on deletion work in particular, you see a slew of folks that want to use WP to promote themselves or their product in an inappropriate fashion. This guy isn't one of those people. He paid cash for his self-promotion, both in money and, more importantly, in dignity. He's a huckster, a snake-oil salesman, a medical doctor who flogs a vastly over-hyped product (fruit-acid peels) to the gullible segment of the middle class, with an affordable payment plan. He's an American archetype, an embarrassment, a medicine show of the late twentieth century. He's been advertising on the train since the 70s, before HMOs got big, when doctors still were looked up to, still got respect just for being doctors. He's an embarrassment to some people in the medical community, an embarrassment to some Jewish people, a creepy airbrushed face grinning down at you with the smugness of the flip side of the American Dream. And he's done it all in New York City, the advertising capital of North America, and is the most notable face of the cheapening of respect for medical doctors in this city. I've got no sources to back me up, but this guy is one of the people who were in the right place at the right time to set the example to the people who design the medical advertising for the entire country, to push its tone in a more commercial direction. No, you don't necessarily know who Jonathan Zizmor is, but you've seen advertising for medical doctors that has been influenced by the man. And that's why he gets the coverage in national cultural publications that he most undeniably has received, and also why you don't like him very much. Darkspots 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insipidly weak keep I stick to my vote in the first AfD, the arguments have not materially changed. IMO, he barely scrapes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I remember seeing his ads last time I was in NY. Thought they were creepy... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. Eusebeus 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the commenters above, arguments have not materially changed from the first nomination. Yamaguchi先生 03:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Self-publicity is not per se notable. WMMartin 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability suffices, even if achieved through self-promotion and even if limited to one large city. In response to comment by Movementarian: I've never understood the attitude that sees AfD questions as whether someone "gets" to have an article. We're not the Nobel Prize Committee. The issue to my mind is whether the article improves the information value of Wikipedia. This one does. JamesMLane t c 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep numerous non trivial mentions in the media per links above... that passes the WP:BIO requirements.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Keim[edit]

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

A teenaged dancer/local model who seems to fail WP:BIO. Little to no external coverage; her accomplishments don't quite make her notable yet. Crystallina 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 9 non-wiki ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 06:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without context for the "prestigious" competitions she's won (ie. WP articles, verifiable sources), no notability is inferred. Caknuck 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like vanity, and I think that if "CanDance" was so prestigious there'd be an article about it. Ultra-Loser [ T ] [ C ] 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete w/ -10 ghits... no notability. SkierRMH,07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:AUTO If it walks like a duck.... MartinDK 12:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Sometimes I doubt my commitment to Sparkle Motion. -- Shunpiker 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 11 unique Ghits, including 3 wiki related and 2 myspace links. Definitely way off the scale. Ohconfucius 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 11:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator, most likely a vanity article which does not contain any reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G11. —Cuiviénen 14:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addonchat[edit]

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

No evidence that it meets WP:SOFTWARE notability criteria. Author is apparently founder of company (compare earlier edits to username). Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie Talk 07:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Band[edit]

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

Only 2 edits, no pages linking to it except a disambiguation page, also seems to be a bit of a 'glowing review' about the band- "Australia's most exciting and revered progressive rock band" however it has no relevant Google hits, and I have never heard of them. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 07:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC as they don't seem notable at all, and have released only one single independent album. No awards or other notable mentions either. Jayden54 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but wouldn't this be more appropriately discussed under TfD?  :) Just kidding, clearly fails to meet WP:BAND. Xtifr tälk 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the exact same thing. Also, delete. -- Kicking222 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drops of light[edit]

Drops of light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable band. Was put up for speedy deletion by ArmadilloFromHell (talk · contribs), which was contested by the creator Vinnyk (talk · contribs). Mike Peel 08:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and I don't believe the original article creator can contest a speedy delete - the correct procedure is to tag it with hangon and not remove the speedy tag--ArmadilloFromHell 14:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band.Edison 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic Realism (communism)[edit]

Aesthetic Realism (communism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questionable authenticity MichaelBluejay 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that this concept really existed in communist regimes as claimed, at least by this name. I'm familiar with another use of the term Aesthetic realism, and when I researched it on the net I never came across this other alleged communist use. The article certainly provides zero references to support its claim. If the existence of this concept can be established and is notable, then of course I have no objection to keeping the article. Otherwise I suggest it be deleted. -09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The author probably meant Socialist realism. --Folantin 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rintrah 12:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Folantin. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Folantin; the socialist realism article is quite good and seems to be about the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Folantin. Would it be a good idea to create a redirect from this name to the socialist realism article? Esn 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt it. There seems no evidence socialist realism was ever called "aesthetic realism". --Folantin 20:57, 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 keep. No-one has expressed an opinion that the article should be deleted. Even the nominator xyrself wants a merger. Articles for deletion is not the place to discuss article merger. I suggest reading the new Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_subjects_that_fail_to_satisfy_the_notability_criteria. Uncle G 13:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate[edit]

Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable enough to deserve its own article, I suggest a merge with Linux kernel and redirect. I wasn't satisfied with the keep arguments from the last debate. Everyone demanded expansion of the article but no-one pointed out what it could be expanded with. (I promise not to nominate it again no matter this one's outcome..) Memmke 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and remove nomination: The other AFD finished just over 12 hours ago and was a definite keep. Far too soon to nominate for AFD again, a decision was made. Also note the OP's only posts so far are the previous AfD, this AfD and talks regarding the AfD. I think this is bad faith and someone wants to make a point. The OP points out that they "wasn't satisfied with the keep arguments from the last debate", well the closing admin was as was everyone else. Ben W Bell talk 09:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, Wikipedia is not a democracy. And, would it really hurt to debate the subject further? Memmke 10:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, an apparent single-purpose account renominating an article with the exact same rationale 12 hours after their previous AfD failed. Demiurge 10:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys shouldn't be so quick to judge me, I've renominated it on different grounds. I didn't create this account to renominate it, I nominated it the first time too. I'm new to wikipedia and still "learning", so please don't bite me. Memmke 10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the only place to discuss recently closed afds is WP:DRV. MER-C 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Must be go through this every week... do not renominate articles so shortly after the AfD closed. As stated above that is what deletion review is for. One thing is for sure... this way won't get you many supporters that's for sure. MartinDK 12:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - ignoring for a minute that it survived an AFD just a few hours ago, this is easily a very notable debate for Wikipedia to cover. It can be expanded with both views, that of the microkernel and the monolithic kernel, as well as an observation of currently existing kernels and thus the practical use of both design philosophies. The debate was revisited at a later date; we can cover that as well. I don't see how this cannot be expanded. Just give it eternity, and this article will eventually write itself, like every other article on Wikipedia. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 13:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart helm[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide. This is pure game-guide material. Therefore, this is not Wikipedia material. (Contested prod.) Zetawoof(ζ) 09:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and point creator to wowwiki.com. Demiurge 10:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete by WP:CSD 1.2-1&7 -- wtfunkymonkey 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should probably be speediable as it doesn't assert noteworthiness; if not, WP:NOT applies. Shimeru 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 11:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CRUFT and not even the kind that people at least put an effort into. Now how much more of this World of Warcraft crapcruft is left here... MartinDK 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete but not for the reason of cruft (because WP:CRUFT is an essay, and one that does not describe WP policy at that) but instead WP:NOT and WP:SNOW. ColourBurst 03:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now this is material which is a clear example of game guide content. Even if there was a page on Warcraft armor, this would be way too much. FrozenPurpleCube 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropiately detailed content. Andre (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Game guide as well as totally indiscriminate info. DarkSaber2k 15:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - not notable, not informative, not interesting, and not literate. Pete Fenelon 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Avi 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Ewen[edit]

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

Vanity, non-notability? (let's find out) Memmke 10:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Conflict of interest, something User:Stuartewen has been warned about before he started writing the article. --Lijnema 10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a violation of WP:AUTO. Also may be a copyvio from the Hunter College website. Movementarian (Talk) 12:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hunter College not a copyright violation. Citations will be added. This was posted at the request of many who noted that there was no article on Stuart Ewen and that there should be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartewen (talk • contribs) 2006-11-20 16:00:33
  • Speedy Keep Notable as distinguished professor at a major university with numerous scholarly books which are widely reviewed in multiple independent scholary publications. (Note: I absolutely do not get my shorts in a knot if a user with a name similar to a subject edits. The Guideline cited is not an ironclad rule. It means nothing when the subject is inherently notable. I edit Thomas Edison and I am not Thomas Edison. It takes maybe 10 seconds to create a new ID, so why punish authors who are too honest to do that and reward authors who use an anonymous ID, as to create an article about their garage band?) Edison 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article is a copyvio of a clearly marked, copyrighted page. That alone makes it eligible for deletion unless the copyright owner (Hunter College) gives permission. It is also written by the subject of the article, which violates WP:AUTO. I am not opposed to an article being written about the professor, but this particular article needs to be deleted. Movementarian (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-for one, as a professor, you ought to know what copying from another source/web site and not attributing it is called. It starts with a p. Accordingly, this page automatically gets a fail, as a potential copyvio, definite conflict of interest, and very weak assertion of meeting WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF. Seraphimblade 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two issues here:
    1. If it's copyvio, it should be deleted out of hand, and User:Stuartewen slapped with an especially large trout for plagiarism.
    2. If the issue is just whether the guy is notable, I'd say Keep. The guy's book PR!: A Social History of Spin did garner him a couple of interviews -- granted, one is just a website, and one appears to be a D-list magazine. But websites that are effectively on-line magazines, we'd better get use to considering them as equal to small magazines, pace Slate and Salon, granting that committment.com is not in the same league. There's also quite a long a review at PR Watch, an arm of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is real and somewhat significant organization, the interview being reprinted from The Progressive, which appears to be a real magazine that publishes work from people you've actually heard of (Barbara Ehrenreich, Molly Ivins, Howard Zinn). So with this book he's perhaps broken out a tad from being a strictly academic author and garnered a small slice of real-world buzz. I also see on Amazon that the book was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly; whether that means anything I don't know. And he does have a few other books out, some with Basic Books which if I recall correctly is a real publisher that places books in general-interest bookstores. Herostratus 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Herostratus. Copyvio issue should be addressed through normal copyvio process; AfD result of Keep is no license to ignore copyrights. JamesMLane t c 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've protected the page from recreation, too; I'm apparently the fourth person to delete the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidweb[edit]

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

A Wiki-based web directory. No claim of meeting WP:WEB, no secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:WEB criteria The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. a google search returned 600 odd hits, in the first 30 odd entries there isnt WP:V 3rd party coverage, the site on its main page claims this article gives it notability. Gnangarra 11:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A redirect to Open Directory Project should also be considered to discourage recreation. Movementarian (Talk) 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Wikidweb has nothing to do with ODP, I don't see a redirect being appropriate. --StuffOfInterest 12:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A7, as tagged. ViridaeTalk 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy bogdan 14:41, 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. – Avi 07:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chainki[edit]

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

It's baaaack! Deleted in July by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chainki, deleted again in October as repost, here it is again. Content different, but the naming of the founder is a stable feature (vanispamcruftisement?). The last paragraph, a meta-comment stating that it is "already notable" because of its size. Since this was achieved largely through bulk copying from DMOZ, not it's not. No evidence of actually meeting WP:WEB. Started in July 2006, Alexa rank is well over 300,000. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm one of the parties who added details to the article. [Puts up hand sheepishly and admits to having added the founder's name]. Being new here I didn't realise its history, nor that the inclusion of the chap's name is taboo. For future reference, how would I run a search to know if an article has already been deleted? -- MirDoc 10:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it happens all the time. Nothing wrong with adding the guy's name, either, especially if he's notable, but this looks like a vanity namecheck (even if it isn't) because it appears to be the one thing which has existed in all incarnations. You can tell if it's been deleted by looking at the logs, which should be linked from the "no article exists" page. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm to blame for the recent creation of this article which was three sentences long when I submitted it. I'm new to Wikipedia and I didn't realize the content wouldn't be suitable for a new page. I'll read up on the discussion and try to figure out why it isn't appropriate. I also won't try to modify it again. Tut21 19:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the blog[[27]] associated with Chainki might also be worth a look in relation to this discussion. ;-) The author of the original wiki entry is chuffed to have this second version denoted at the Web directories category. -- MirDoc 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The blogger also reads here, see [blog] ;-). 80.201.217.145 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the "half a million pages and 200,000 edits" seem to be inherited directly from Open Directory Project. (I could download an ODP database dump too, that wouldn't make my hard disk notable.) Demiurge 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Open Directory Project to discourage yet another recreation. It should really just be deleted, but it will just be recreated again. Why not just save ourselves the trouble? Movementarian (Talk) 11:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The statement that "notable simply because of its rapid growth" is false -- we need sources for this article and it does not have any, probably because nobody considers it to be worthy of note. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth per nomination. MartinDK 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All references are to itself, which doesn't establish notability. Salt as it has been deleted twice already, once just a month ago. StuffOfInterest 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Grutness...wha? 12:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. As it says Following a long line of other sites using Open Directory Project... - there are thousands of sites that are based on ODP. --ArmadilloFromHell 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have three web directory sites generated from ODP data, users can add their own sites to my directories, and thay are not just ODP clones but added content. If this gets kept, it sets a precedent that means I get to add mine to Wiki also. Mine are also not for profit (at least I have not made any yet [LOL]) --ArmadilloFromHell 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have a connection with Chainki, so the "Keep" is perhaps biased, but I am also therefore in a position to bring some facts. It's worth perhaps comparing this RfD with the previous one. In the previous one Chainki had 689 hits in Google; today it has 25200. In the previous one, Chainki did not even appear on Alexa; today it has an Alexa rank of 328,297 - but particularly since this is a new site, the rank (which is 3-month) is inevitably out of date, so also relevant is that all the figues on Alexa are strongly upwards - the 1 week average is 238,086, and at one point the site was in the top 100,000. It's perhaps a sign of some notability that three separate users have created it. As long as Chainki keeps growing strongly (which it has according to Alexa) I'm sure it will come back again and again. Save a lot of work and keep; I don't much care, because I know it will keep coming back as more and more notable and one day it will stay. Brusselsshrek 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If GoGuides and Skaffe aren't considered notable enough for an entry in the Wikipedia, then Chainki certainly isn't notable enough. The article as written seems to be pretty commercial too, rather than encyclopedic. Rray 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not notable, and seems to just be using Wikipedia to troll for more links. Pete Fenelon 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. I think it should be kept bacause of its huge number of pages. If it's being kept, it should be rewritten. [ Smiddle / Talk - Contribs ] 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite I agree. Keep and rewrite. Kobra 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite I have no connection with Chainki - indeed I had never heard of it before today - but having seen a reference to it I looked on Wikipedia and found the article a useful explanation. If there are things in the article that don't meet your standards, fix it, don't delete it. Yes, it's based on DMOZ data run on Wikipedia's software, but that's why both made their data/code respectively open. And it DOES add value to those things: it answers the question of "what would happen if you let anyone edit DMOZ Open Directory using the Wiki model?". Personally I expect it to fail due to link spamming - but then many people expect Wikipedia to fail and so far it's surviving pretty well! If I'm proved right it will serve as a lesson to the net, and if I'm wrong that will be even better as it will be a useful resource. [Note: I do have a connection with DMOZ, as a volunteer editor there (editor name dww), and I see Chainki has incorporated all my work without thanking me in any way. But that's fine by me; if I didn't want it to be shared I wouldn't work on an open system.] 86.9.147.50 13:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) dww[reply]
Comment. Mr.Chainki also reads this page. Some thanks added. 80.201.89.121 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I too am a volunteer editor with DMOZ with no connection to Chainki. I’m somewhat ambivalent about Chainki’s future and tend to share dww’s view on the matter. However when adding to this article I sought to approach the task with good faith and expand the stub based on whatever research I could scratch up on the topic. With the benefit of re-reading the article a week later, I can now see how the different portions added throughout 20 November by different people do not always gel with other portions. On some points the article hedges bets, yet at other times throughout the article the same points are expressed as fact. In trying to be even-handed, I have probably kept too large a percentage of the previous portions rather than rewrite them to a consistent style. If someone were to straighten out the misfits and trim the duplications, then I think this article would be worth saving. MirDoc 08:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite I also agree with dww. When I submitted the short Nov. 18 version of this article I considered Chainki noteworthy because it is the only attempt to convert dmoz to a wiki that anyone can modify. In my opinion this is important because dmoz's editor tools have been down for over a month with no end in sight. If there were several such projects I would agree that none of them belong in Wikipedia just yet. (And yes, I use both dmoz and Chainki.) Tut21 18:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but ambivalent. (Full disclosure: I own a "competing" website, Wikidweb the article of which was been deleted for notability concerns [No, I did not write the article - I don't spam to promote my sites]). The point I want to make is this: 1) We have an objective criteria for article inclusion, in the interests of fairness and avoiding chaos. 2) If we are to really apply "Noteworthy" as an objective criteria, it should be applied uniformly. Now, I think Chainki is noteworthy, and I also think Wikidweb is noteworthy - they both have a degree of popularity and have some neat, unique features - but that does NOT satisfy the notability criteria for websites (sorry Hugh). --Aerik (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michniowski[edit]

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

not important politician, i think it is some kind of autobiography, moreover the Polish wiki doesn't contain this article Bielsko 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Polish wiki does not have an article for him and WP:BIO states that merely being a local politican does not merit inclusion. If deletion is not the result of this discussion, the a redirect to Bielsko-Biała should be considered. Movementarian (Talk) 11:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article suggests that he's an influential figure in regional energy issues, so if there has been some controversy or major news coverage of that at some point in the past that specifically mentions him, this article might be notable enough for inclusion. In its current state, though, it's deletable. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 11:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the city over which he provides as deputy mayor is not insignificant, I see no assertion of notability within the article. ViridaeTalk 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Holds an important office in Poland. Should move to Zbigniew Michniowski, however. Westenra 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Holding an important office is IMO not enough for notability. Who were his predecessors? Were they notable? How many people can mention their names? JRSP 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources. Also, why does it have only his last name in the title? Edison 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A mayor of a city of 200,000 people is by definition notable whether in Poland or the United States, but the deputy mayor? I don't think so. His title as VP of a Euroregion is also not notable - the president of the region may be, but not the vice-president. --Charlene 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Bielsko 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blueberry dro[edit]

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

Google search turns up only Urban Dictionary and some web forums-and that's where it belongs, not here. Seraphimblade 11:58, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Adams[edit]

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

From the people who brought you Footbasket and the life story of Theodore Macus comes this charming anon-removed Prod. Once again, we're dealing with a hoax. That Jimmy Barnes appeared on Rove is proven (there was a source provided which tried to show that this entire thing was true, but all it showed was Barnes' appearance), but nothing else is. Given the "facts" being asserted here, one would think that one of the two TV shows would have made a big deal about it, but strangely enough they didn't. As a side-note, since anecdotal evidence doesn't really count, a friend who watches Rove religiously tells me that none of this happened either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete delete delete! And for God's sake block this editor! Can't someone just nuke all of User:Quillandpaper73's articles? Worst hoaxes ever not to forget the army of ridiculous sockpuppets. The best part about this is that now we get to hear the famous "I thought someone would add sources later" argument clearly indicating this persons amazing ability to know things he/she has no idea where came come from. Oh goodie!!!!. Proof of Jimmy Barnes on Rove was added, still trying to find the current Affair link of Barnaby Adams. When I do, I shall link that. Until then, please do not try to delete this article, unless you yourself have searched the Current Affair archives. Now where did we hear that crap before? MartinDK 12:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Didn't we establish last week that this editor is a four headed sockpuppet? MartinDK 12:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax + Obvious = Kill! -- Kicking222 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax - The only "Barnaby Adams" I could find was somebody elected "festival chair" at the Imperial College Union [28]. Or if you're interested in renting a palatial French country home, you can contact Mr. Adams here [29] (looks quite nice, actually) --Oakshade 15:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block user. This guy seems to be in the business of creating hoaxes on Wikipedia. --Charlene 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find any relevant Google hits. For "one of the major promotors of the campaign" he doesn't seem to be very well known. Hut 8.5 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G3 and G5. Decapitate his sockpuppets and make smoking craters out of any other of his edits or articles, while we're at it. This really should've gone straight to speedy as blatant vandalism and intentional disruption, IMHO. Tubezone 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was created at around the same time as the Footbasket article, so none of them were necessarily proven hoaxes yet - which was presumably why the Prod tag was added. In retrospect, of course, it can't have been anything but a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing about this on Google News [30], Google News Archive [31] or EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database. There are no sources provided to verify this and it seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--cj | talk 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - And ban this user from Wikipedia Firelement85 06:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G3, and get rid of the guy. And make sure to throw his socks out after him. Seraphimblade 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoaxalicious. Lankiveil 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above. --Roisterer 00:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unquestionable hoax. Evilgrug 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Avi 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Aya[edit]

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

This used to be an attack page ( poorly sourced statement deleted per WP:BLP, check history and talk page). Without this material, the article is only NN information about a middle rank functionary. No article links there. JRSP 13:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep she holds an important office in Venezuela. Westenra 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An illegible fax in Spanish is not "multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources". A government post might be an unimportant or honorary one. We have no obvious way of knowing that the site is in fact a government site there, since a foreign language Wikipedia might link to www.whitehouse.org or www.theonion.com for humor posing as official looking information. If the person is a high government official, there should be lots of articles in major newspapers of that country. If some of them were in an English language paper of that country (most countries have at least one) so much the better, but we probably could find an editor of English language Wikipedia able to check out foreign languages refs. Edison 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice The main reason that I want this page to be deleted isn't that she's non-noteable, but that the page history exposes wikipedia to liability. The previous versions of this page show a reckless disregard for the truth and are extremely defamatory. They say that she was a member of a Peruvian terrorist group in the 1960s despite the fact that she is not Peruvian and that the group metioned didn't exist in the 1960s. They also say that she was part of some urban guerrilla outfit in Venezuela, but there's no verifiable information that she was. Basically, this page was the definition of libel, and I have no doubt that the Chavez administration would delight in suing Wikipedia. --Descendall 20:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands she does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:BIO, as merely being a politician does not merit an entry. If one of our spanish speaking Wikipedians can provide more detail, then I'd be happy to change my opinion. Movementarian (Talk) 20:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. She certainly holds that position (which really tells us nothing); I've seen some pages talking about her from the Organization of American States, a couple of news conferences and quotes from her, several press releases talking about her being named to that position, but nothing that seems to shout at me of the importance of her position. If anything, it seems like she may function as something of public relations.. I'm going to look into it some more. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with losing the history; any deletion should be without prejudice to future recreation. I suspect she does merit an article, but there is no great loss in losing this sub-stub. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that; further information makes it seem she is fairly notable, and articles like this help counter systemic bias; but the history in this case isn't helpful. Perhaps this article should be deleted and have the stub recreated in its place sans history? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main concern is the use of the article as an attack page. Although I still think subject is NN, I would not object the re-creation of a NPOV stub. JRSP 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics in Society (MDST242)[edit]

Statistics in Society (MDST242) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Individual university are courses are not inherently notable in themselve. This course may have been the longest running course within its university and notably multi-disciplinary but those features aren't especially notable in their own right (although perhaps worthy of briefly being included in the trivia section for Open University. Timrollpickering 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inherently non-notable. Since it makes some attempt to sound notable, I'm not going to speedy it, but I think WP:SNOW applies here. —Cuiviénen 14:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, no references to show it is notable or that it existed. Second, why is a "long running course" notable? Should we have article saying that "Torts 1" is the oldest course taught by the Yale Law School, etc for every college in the world? I don't think so. But isf the fact that something is "the oldest course," "the biggest ball of twine," "the smartest parrot" or whatever and there are lots of news articles, TV documentaries, and scholarly articles about it over a long period of time, then by all means create an article, since it is notable. Edison 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There is an off change that someone may search for this, redirecting preserves GDFL, and it doesn't hurt anything. Movementarian (Talk) 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable, no one will ever search for it Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - might just warrant a footnote in the OU article but this is Not Notable At All. Pete Fenelon 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Kent[edit]

There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability, and the content doesn't seem to have anything that meets WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Also, the picture appears to be a copyvio, from here - [32]. Note that the FHM and The X Factor references are unverified, no sources have been cited. --SunStar Net 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR if we can't get a source for this interview. If we can, delete as a copyvio. yandman 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails WP:BIO, does not assert notabilility WP:NOTE, unverified and failed Ghits, ageed image most likely a copyvio from the Geocities website..--Dakota 15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks sufficient references. By the way, it says she does the early show at 3 am. The striking picture looks more like she stayed up from the evening before. Does it illustrate her TV appearance? Edison 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The picture was taken for the website in this link and it was from GCap Media, so it's a definite copyvio. As for the TV appearance, that is unverified - no sources have been cited - so it may be a possible hoax (the TV appearance, and the FHM mentions) on the writer's part. --SunStar Net 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no sources cited. Format's a bit dodgy. Chisrule 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She definitely is mentioned on the Leicester Sound web page, so she's not a hoax (although many radio personalities use stage names), but notability is another question. If the source of the interview can't be verified, this article should be speedied as an attack page, looks like someone wants to make her appear to be a bimbo. Tubezone 01:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as an attack page contributed by a user with a history of vandalism and/or incivil behavior. Rossami (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armalite (band)[edit]

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

Prod was removed, has been previously deleted so now comes to Afd, nn notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, failed Ghits (not to be confused with a gun by the same name ArmaLite) fails Alexa [33]--Dakota 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draw your attention to paragraph 6, containment of at least one member to go on to join or was once part of notable bands. Two members of band featured in article are current members of extremely influential hardcore bands whose articles stand on WikiPedia: Paint It Black, Atom And His Package and features a past member of groundbreaking hardcore band Kid Dynamite.Mjfraction 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Mjfraction (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, and I wonder if their name isn't a trademark violation. yandman 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Note: the trademark does not provide much protection against someone using the same name for a product which cannot be confused with the original: see the case of Ford chewing gum versus Ford Motor Company. Edison 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC. Contains notable members of notable groups and has released an album on an independent label with a notable roster. T Rex | talk 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN, WP:MUSIC, myspace is the place for cruft like this. Pete Fenelon 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Žėkas[edit]

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

NN writer, claimed to have published two poems, but couldn't confirm; even if true... 2 poems is not enough. Seems to be a vanity article; was deleted twice via A7, but as a claimed published author, I think we should decide here. delete. Mangojuicetalk 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, yet another student pretending to be notable. yandman 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just barely asserts notability so as to not qualify for speedying via db-bio. -- Kicking222 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notabliity. Edison 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Protect I've nominated this article twice for speedy with it passing, and once for speedy with it coming to AFD (this time). I suggest the page should be protected (or considered for protection) after this deletion (its third) since User:Lechaim keeps recreating it with the exact same content. --TM 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 20:47, 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 keep and cleanup. – Avi 07:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television shows[edit]

List of Philippine television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm nominating this article for deletion. Here's why:

  • Not all the shows are notable enough to be included on the list. Some of the shows enjoyed short runs and, in all likelihood, are no longer remembered by some Filipinos.
  • Biased in favor of two channels. Taking a look at the list, it's obvious that this was written by someone who is a Kapuso or a Kapamilya (or a little of both), and then again there are very, very few shows from the other mainstream channels (NBN-4, ABC-5, RPN-9 and IBC-13)
  • (Corollary to the previous item) If we have to make a list of all Philippine TV shows from all channels, this list will be too long. Listcruft.
  • (Corollary to the last two items) most of the TV shows are/were broadcast in recent times (as early as the 80's). Since this list does not define a specific time window to the shows that can be listed here, it would be logical to include shows that were shown way, way back when the first Philippine TV broadcasts went live...and this means the 1950s. This would make the list even longer.
--- Tito Pao 18:18, 14 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, Yomanganitalk 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep remove the foreign shows if you're worried about it being too long, their inclusion is dubious anyway. Notability of individual shows and bias are arguments for cleaning it up, not for deleting it. Demiurge 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You may have problems with the content, in which case you can delete them. It probably should be divided among shows on the major Phillipine Networks, but doing that should happen first, and this page should disambig from there. FrozenPurpleCube 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably a very incomplete list. How long, for example would "List of U.S. television show" be? or same for British, French, etc. Edison 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, try looking at List of television programs for all sorts of lists. Why should the Phillipines be excluded? FrozenPurpleCube 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One could also ask, "Why shouldn't most of the other incomplete and arbitrary lists be deleted? The list implies there were only 2 new shows on US tv in 1956, showing the arbitrariness of such lists. (Except for "shows deleted after one episode" and such defined and maintainable lists.) Edison 03:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they not be deleted? Because they are useful and informative lists, that's why. That some of them are incomplete, especially back in the 50s does not surprise me. It's not arbitrary when someone doesn't know something, just ignorance. That happens. If you see any errors or incomplete information, go ahead and fix them! Wikipedia is not built in a day, and it's not built by deletions. FrozenPurpleCube 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but convert this into a dab page, divided into networks. Perhaps what be added here are programs that changed networks - like Eat Bulaga! for example. --Howard the Duck 08:30, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Bridge Incident[edit]

Pink Bridge Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable beyond local areaMiaKarina 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Completely insignificant. -- Kicking222 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: "per nom"? You listed no valid reason. It is a notable incident within Huntington, West Virginia with appropriate citations and an extensive body of text - more than many other articles which are kept on Wikipedia that lack sources. It has also been featured on CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX news, making it quite notable outside of the KYOVA region. If that wasn't the case, it would still fit the bill as would articles concerning the city itself - or else we'd be left with very few articles as most city-related articles do not fall into a broad region but are specific. Would you propose deleting Parks of Huntington, West Virginia or Cityscape of Huntington, West Virginia since it isn't notable outside the local area? Nope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now anyway. Well-referenced artilce on an event that is causing alot of controversy and getting national exposure. People will likely be googling this topic for some time, and this article seems to be a good source for now. If the event dies down in the future, I may be open to a merge into Huntington, West Virginia, Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia, or a future spin-off article on the city. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if inclusion into another would be good if Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia is expanded upon in the future. The page length could become lengthy and the incident isn't wholly related to recreation within the city either. This is considered a 'spin-off' article for the city at current, but it could be directed towards Government as much as Recreation at this point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was going to reccomend merging it into Ritter Park at some point in the future, but I see you had that deleted, a move with which I mildly disagree. But overall, I am still advocating for a keep here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was my mistake. I should have moved it instead of deleting when I merged the articles together, but by the time I got to them, most had been deleted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add: It was picked up by the Associated Press. That alone makes it notable. See many news articles for verification. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If this article is not deemed encyclopedic material for Wikipedia, then this is not too nor is any other local landmark that gets national attention. It does not conform to one's point of view and the article is backed by a couple of news sources either from television or newspaper. However, I do like someone to go and take a picture of the bridge. Spongefan, 17:38 November 20 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Huntington, West Virginia. Matter of local interest only. This overly-long article can be much more concisely stated in a brief paragraph in the Huntington article. Agent 86 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are suggesting watering down the article, leaving out the requests for the red/yellow bridges, the Mayor abusing city ordinances and the law, and dumbing it down to a short paragraph onto a page that is already lengthy and will only grow? Let's go ahead and water down thousands of Wikipedia articles because they may be too lengthy or of local interest.
    • Should we be going and deleting Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia since it is local? Or what about all the notable people from Huntington that have entries? Veterans Memorial Fieldhouse and Keith Albee would also fit the bill, along with Buildings at the University of Kentucky, etc. You haven't defined a line and it is vague and insignificant at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good, concise writing does not equate "dumbing down". "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.": Pascal,1656. Agent 86 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you leave out pertant information regarding potential lawsuits, potential action against the mayor for violating the law, copycat issues, and a wealth of other information (since it is being maintained into 2007), you are leaving the reader with a potentially biased and unsubstantial view on an event.
        • As a suggestion in order to not come off as arrogant and selfish, I would use only terminology that others can understand. i.e. Leave the foreign language out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikinews Probably does not pass the "100 year" test, but neither deos 90% of Wikipedia articles. At least the editors provided a list of references, so it passes the "in the news right now" test. Edison 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no such "100 year" test, or "in the news right now" test. If that was the case, any breaking news such as airline crashes should not be on Wikipedia. We might as well erase Southern Airlines Flight 932 because it doesn't pass this supposed "100 year" test, as well as, as you stated, 90% of the Wikipedia articles... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should stay because this article gives great encyclopedic info of a current event going on in the tri-state area. The Punk 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one that will be extending with other incidents (that would be lumped under this article since they are all derivatives) involving numerous other bridges and now... underpasses. And the threat of legal action is one that now looms over the city... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Request closure per WP:DP as it other alternatives exist. For instance, mergeto could have been suggested, along a request for comments could have been instigated; WP:PROD could have been useful as well. It doesn't fall into WP:NOT or any of the guidelines stated on WP:DP, either. Requesting closure with no consensus, defaulting to keep. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep See Wikipedia is not paper (as mentioned above). Also, any article with that many references within the first week of creation deserves an award, not a deletion. John Reaves 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well referenced, and is notable event about a notable city. WVhybrid 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I live in Arizona, and I have heard of this incident. This definitely notable to people beyond the area. The article is well referenced, so I see no valid reason to delete it. -- THLCCD 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A local example / part of an international movement. Peter Ellis 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons stated above. Dblevins2 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because you've heard of something doesn't make it notable: I've heard of numerous minor pop stars having affairs with Z-list actors, but they aren't notable in the sense that you hope your children will have heard of them. The 9/11 aircraft flights and crashes are notable because they are part of something that shapes the world, but random disasters are not. In the same way, this is just some current news, and as such belongs in Wikinews, not in Wikipedia. If someday there is a worldwide "painting things pink" movement, then we will resurrect this article, as it will be notable as the first significant pink bridge. But we're not here to predict the future, so right now it's just a pink bridge: mildly interesting, but not notable. WMMartin 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per comment left above, it is an exhaustible resource to Huntington. If we removed all localised information for the city based that it is "not notable outside of the locals," we would be removing much of the interesting information that makes a city unique. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - this is not notable in the slightest, and affects nobody but a few locals. Pete Fenelon 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Per comment left above, it is an exhaustible resource to Huntington. If we removed all localised information for the city based that it is "not notable outside of the locals," we would be removing much of the interesting information that makes a city unique. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable incident, and the article has more detail than the Huntington article could reasonably accommodate. JamesMLane t c 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is also articles like this that makes a city article not only more complete and fulfilling, but interesting. How many cities can claim that they have a pink bridge that has caused controversy for over a month? What if we were to delete every interesting or notable (localised) incident that were to occur? Wikipedia's city pages would be very dull and boring indeed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of interest only to people in the area is enough. bbx 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Natural Selection (computer game). Edit history is retained if someone wants to merge useful content (and source it). ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kharaa[edit]

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

WP:NOT a game guide or instruction manual, Prod was removed with no reason given. As I said in the prod, any non-manual information can and should be moved to the main Natural Selection article. DarkSaber2k 15:22, 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 Revert vandalism, page was originally about a USC lineman who is a finalist for various major awards. NawlinWiki 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Jackson[edit]

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

Not notable. Biggest claim is that he signed with Clemson but then didn't qualify academically. Won some high school awards (all-state) but doesn't need an article. Perhaps if/when he gets to Clemson and performs maybe an article. MECU≈talk 15:25, 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 Keep improved article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adequacy.org[edit]

Adequacy.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB. No real claims of notability, sources. Full of original research. Tagged it and requested sources over 2 weeks ago with no responses. Delete as failing WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Adequacy's infamous "Computer Hacker" article was featured on the TechTV program "The Screen Savers", and in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the "serious" satire piece "Why The Bombings Mean We Must Support My Politics" was actually syndicated by AlterNet. This should be more than enough to meet WP:WEB, but the problem is that given the amount of time that has passed, it is difficult to document these references (I found AlterNet's copy of the Adequacy article here and will add it to the article page later, but "The Screen Savers" has been off the air for some time). Though this page could use some work, deleting it seems ridiculous to me, particularly when there are articles like the one for Segfault (website) that contain no more claims of notability and yet are (apparently) perfectly acceptable. 152.61.42.109 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who said that page was acceptable? You do know that people can create pages whenever they want, don't you? That's kind of the point of this site. Recury 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that the Segfault page has been around for two and a half years and that it has (apparently) never been nominated for deletion is a pretty good indicator that it is acceptable. For the record, I'm not suggesting that the article be deleted -- as somebody who fondly remembers Segfault, I would consider deleting its article to be as ludicrous as deleting Adequacy's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.61.42.109 (talk • contribs)
  • I know nothing of Segfault, but that article as it stands violates several Wikipedia policies as well. There are many bad articles on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean there should be more. Wickethewok 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, reasonable enough. I didn't write the original article, but I could certainly take a stab at reorganizing / rewriting it. Adequacy certainly should pass WP:WEB, but you are correct when you point out that the article, in its current form, does not establish this. Seventypercent 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Site is notable. Even though the site is down for some time, google still gives a lot of hits. Also links are provided to various sources. Seems to be strongly relate to kuro5hin Sander123 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the sources listed in the article are links to the website itself. Wickethewok 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • kuro5hin and google groups were referenced, more references have been added after your call for deletion. Anyway the point is, the site is notable, more notable than many other sites. If you search for [34] you'll find many hits on many sites. You may want to know something about the origin of this and other stories. That's kind of the point of this site. Sander123 09:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Recury 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide multiple, reliable, verifiable independent sources sufficient to show notablity. The did have some funny stuff, but a defunct website is unlikely to get more notable, and I don't see that it made enough of a splash. Edison 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is your son a computer hacker? That bit was hilarious! The site gets plenty of hits, but they're almost entirely from weblogs linking to various adequacy.org articles. I can't find anything that meets WP:WEB criterion, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The nominator is correct that the article, as it is currently, violates WP:OR. JGardner 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep. Recent edits of the article have provided sources that satisfy WP:WEB criterion "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". These sources include G4TV, The Standard, Alternet and The Register. JGardner 10:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly we don't have secondary sources to document the facts in this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that the material that I added last night represents a good-faith effort to address the WP:WEB and WP:V issues with the original article. There's plenty more that I intend to add, particularly in reference to notability, though with the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday it may be a few days before I can really get to it. At any rate, I hope that any decisions regarding deletion in the short term are made with this in mind. Seventypercent 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sources you cite are either blog posts or message board threads of some sort. Several of them don't even mention Adequacy.org. The 8 sentence thing on TechTV is the only thing I'd really qualify as any sort of source, though a single "Site of the Day" mention isn't that impressive (imo at least). Wickethewok 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of the sources I added were intended to establish Adequacy's notability. I listed some of them to document the background information that I was providing (i.e., Eric S. Raymond's post-9/11 comments and the reaction to them, the specifics of the Koleen Brooks story, etc.) Were I reviewing this article, I would certainly expect this information to be documented, so I documented it. I can appreciate your opinion that the Screen Savers appearance was unimpressive, but one of the goals of having subjective guidelines such as WP:WEB is (hopefully) to remove individual opinion from the process. A segment on an internationally-broadcast television program may not be impressive, but it is also not trivial. You did not comment on the AlterNet syndication; while I suspect that you would also find this unimpressive, the fact remains that Adequacy was paid a monetary fee for the rights to an article by a syndication service that receives millions of visitors per month. (Incidentally, this could arguably fit either the first or the third criteria for WP:WEB, the third being "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 bottom line here is that I believe the concerns cited in the deletion notice for this article were entirely legitimate; as such, I spent many hours poring through Google (and G4TV.com's excruciatingly slow Web site) and augmenting the content, and based on my reading of WP:WEB, I believe that the concerns have been adequately (if you'll pardon the pun) addressed. Seventypercent 05:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.36.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V. There are "sources" now, but they're extremely flimsy. Several are blogs, and a lot of them don't even mention Adequacy.org at all. I certainly don't see the sort of non-trivial coverage by reliable publications that we require. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refer to my 05:00, 24 November 26 reply to User:Wickethewok since the substance of your comment is (in essence) identical to his. I would appreciate a comment on (or at the very least an acknowledgment of) that justification; if the fate of this article hinges on a judgement call as to whether TechTV/G4TV and AlterNet are "well-known", then I would hope that the admins would want to err on the side of inclusion, particularly when this article (with the new material) documents itself better than the majority of other articles in similar categories. Seventypercent 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I've just added an additional reference to an article in The Industry Standard. I can keep doing this, but from my perspective, all that I'm doing at this point is demonstrating that I know how to use Google. Seventypercent 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sander123 and 152.61.42.109. --- RockMFR 07:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WEB WP:V. No one has shown that this artcile doesn't meet these requirements. There are plenty of references and external links. I don't know there is such a mass afd for trolling related articles recently but people have to use judgement here. Read WP:WEB and WP:V this article meets it. --TrollHistorian 06:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was certainly no troll AfD. Visit the page BEFORE the AfD nom and you'll find that nearly all of the sources that now satisfy WP:WEB were added after the nomination. The AfD nom has prompted a vast improvement in the article. JGardner 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword and the Soul: The Underground Labyrinth[edit]

The Sword and the Soul: The Underground Labyrinth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an anoucement for an unwritten book of an unpublished writer. The writer does occur on imdb, but even in that context he seems not notable enough. Sander123 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion. yandman 15:55, 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 as unsourced. No independent outside sources were provided to establish the notability of this subject. Contact me if you think you have reliable sources and want the article userfied or restored. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Forums[edit]

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

Forum article with no sources. Some quick Googling doesn't find any either. Requested sources over 2 weeks ago, but no responses. Almost entirely original research and fails WP:WEB. Delete. Wickethewok 15:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I do believe that Christian Forums constitutes a notable topic. It has over 150,000 members and is generally recognized as the largest Christianity-related internet forum in existence (or at the very least, I've yet to see another Christianity-related forum that had as many members or that contested that claim). I also frequently see links to it on other Christian websites. However, I agree that it has serious problems with original research and verifiability (and probably NPOV as well). —Cswrye 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable, third-party sources are freakin' found. Recury 16:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not provide independent sources sufficient to show notablity. Edison 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sheesh, find somethng better to do with your time. This page DOES NOT satisfy deletion criteria. It IS a notable subject, since it is the largest site of its kind on the net. "Over two weeks ago". Are you kidding??? That is a drop in the bucket! Some of us have busy lives. Give it, and people, time, months even, for cryin' out loud. Apparently, per User_talk:Wickethewok#Whatever the user User:Wickethewok has a history of problematic deletion crusades. CyberAnth 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than criticizing me and making vague claims, it would be more productive to find sources. This article has been around for 1.5 years anyway, its not like sourcing is a new thing. Btw, if you care to read the link to my talk page you posted, the discussion is not about me, but about another editor's deletion request on MFD, which I did not participate in. Wickethewok 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You stated in the link to the talk page section I posted, User_talk:Wickethewok#Whatever, "Some of my work has been the subject of bad faith noms in the past". With this page, given your arbitray and flimsy criterion of "two weeks ago" and "quick googling" with probably so vague a term as "Christian Forums", and your already shown to be wrong assertion that it does not meet WP:WEB, one has to wonder.
I only found the article a few days ago. I have already found a few sources for it but I am not going to have time to find more nor work anything in until mid-December earliest, early January latest, and there is no damage being done to leave the page until then. If you want to see the quality of my work in citing sources until then, see Christian_views_on_contraception#Protestant_Christianity. You should retract this request and remove the AfD tag forthwith. CyberAnth 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is far more benificial to the health of Wikipedia to remove unsourced articles if they can't be fixed within the 5 day period. If you have sources, you should feel free to post them here if you are too busy - I'm sure somebody would be happy to write them into the article for you. If you can't post them now, then there should be no prejudice against re-creating a properly sourced article later when you do have the time. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but from where are you pulling out this 5 days stuff? The only reference I find to it is that AfD discussions should go on for 5 days. That time period is irrelevant to how much time a page with problems should be allowed to get fixed before AfDing it.

BTW, consider this fromWikipedia:Articles for deletion:

  • Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}} or {{disputed}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
  • Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
  • Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted.
  • Familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:WEB and WP:VAIN.
  • Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

I am sorry, but I just did not see a good faith effort by Wickethewok to first do any of these less drastic things. It was one comment in the talk page probably nearly no one saw in its two week life, a {{references}} tag for a whopping EIGHT DAYS (!)...and then BAM, time to AfD!

Hmmmmm.

Also see User_talk:Wickethewok#Lost_Marine. In fact, User_talk:Wickethewok is just filled with complaints about the highly questionable AfD actions of Wickethewok.

CyberAnth 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I'm the co-founder, Ryan Swift. What information do you need? How can anything in the history be verified at this point? Well, nothing is published, and many of the historical posts related to the history of Christian Forums is blocked because I'm blocked as a user, and any post I was in is subsequently blocked from public viewing (it's a long story)...so, I have private emails from 2002 between Erwin and myself that I have archived, proving much of the information that is "unsourced." Anyone is welcome to view them or have me email them. Unfortunately, being the co-founder with Erwin, I'm not sure my input now would still qualify to meet wikipedia standards because... heh, my stuff IS original research! So who wants it? Anyone want to care to interview me and publish on a website so that a third party source can be shared on the page? Kingdomgospel.com did exist at one time verifying some of the claims made in the history section. CF is notable, and I would ask any admin reviewing this AfD to consider to KEEP this speedily, and end debate on a ridiculous AfD. If someone wants sources, they can ask me. They can interview me. They can interview Erwin - the current leader of CF. inigmatus 05:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of us interviewing you would be original research and is not encyclopedic. Has any reliable source of information done an article about you, like a Christian magazine or something? Quite a number of other forums and websites have. Wickethewok 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION! It IS possible to use Ryan Swift as a reliable source: See this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source CyberAnth 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it meets our verifiabliity policies. Recury 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here ya go! http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000373.html CyberAnth 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that doesn't. Recury 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than complaining about me (which is quite inappropriate on AFD), I suggest you stick to the matter at hand regarding notability, sourcing, and meeting WP:WEB. Wickethewok 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nauseated Keep. That "Christian Forums" exists makes me feel physically sick - it horrifies me that there are people like that out there. BUT... they have a right to their beliefs, however stomach-turning, and this article appears to document them. WMMartin 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have provided some sources; some are "google cache of deleted threads" and the like, but the material is of substantial interest to a lot of people, and there are plenty of primary sources for a number of the claims. That some claims are hard to source doesn't mean the whole article is problematic.
  • weak Keep if, and only if, it can be rewritten to remove the unsourced claims and advertising-like tone that verges on, if it does not reach, a violation of NPOV guidelines. I am particularly irritated by the flat allegations that this "is the largest site of its kind on the net"; sez who? We Christians are a varied lot, we spend our time in lots of places. Until this Afd, I never heard of this forum. --Orange Mike 16:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"resource"? Wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Orange Mike 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of fascism[edit]

Economics of fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. POV Content fork. All material in this article can and should already be discussed in other articles, like Italian Fascism, Fascism (Fascism and ideology), Corporatism, etc. Intangible 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Another attempt by Intangible to force a minority POV on the rest of Wikipedia.--Cberlet 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The economic aspects of the subjects cited in the nom seem too long to include all the content of this article in those specific articles. There's an enormous amount of sources cited that deal with the specifics of economies and economic techniques in historic fascist societies. Might not be likable, but still important to study. Unlike communism, fascism in itself is not an economic philosophy, but a method of governance, frequently characterized by an "iron fist" method of control of a populace using techniques such as blackshirts in order to gain population submission. This article deals with historic (I hope it gets expanded to more current) economic policies under such a governance. --Oakshade 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs a paragraph summary in the article Fascism and then a link to this article. The main article could use a few more subtopics broken out. Why would you take one concise article and try and distribute it over multiple articles: Italian Fascism, Fascism (Fascism and ideology), and Corporatism. Isn't that a step backward? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Because it is unclear if this article is about the economics of generic fascism or economics of Fascist Italy / Nazi Germany. If it is about the latter, the article should be split. If it is about the former, the article should be split as well, because generic fascism is discussed in Fascism and Corporatism. Intangible 09:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic topic and has references. Edison 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia article. Simply because a political system is unpopular does not mean that its description in an encyclopedia must be held hostage to leftist/liberal bigotry. The Crying Orc 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please keep this article! It has an excellent start. If it needs some cleanup the author can probably do so, or link it to other topical articles. This needs to be seperate so as not to require a prolonged hunt through the expansive articles on Fascism for the economics aspects thereof. If you put too much into an Article (Like Fascism) it can become too unwieldly and too broad in scope. Please at least keep the article on file somewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.105.69 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment. I agree there is valuable information in this article that needs to be preserverd. However, the problem with this article lies in its mixing of generic fascism with that of the (fascist) economic policies of Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany. This mixing makes it hard to improve this article at all! It would be better to separate this stuff in say Economic policies of Fascist Italy or Economic policies of Nazi Germany. Intangible 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - corporatism is a key concept in almost all varieties of fascism. Pete Fenelon 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Richard Arthur Norton that this is an appropriate situation for a summary in the main article (Fascism) with more detail available in this daughter article. JamesMLane t c 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bucketsofg 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne (band)[edit]

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

This article makes no mention of any discography, or if they have released any works. It also makes no mention of the band members. Thus, this article fails WP:BAND. Diez2 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per nom. Borjon22 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a difference between article needing expansion and article that should be deleted. See the entry of this band on AllMusicGuide [here]. I would say it's notable enough to keep. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, upon reviewing the info at AllMusic, I see four albums, but only one of them even lists a label (which leaves the question of whether they have two or more albums on a major label or "important indie" unanswered). Merely having an entry in AMG is not evidence for notability per WP:BAND (although lacking an article in AMG is strong evidence of lacking notability). No awards or charts are listed (and AMG covers a lot). I'm simply not seeing the notability (although I've only done some cursory looking so far). Change to keep if more convincing evidence of notability turns up (quite possible for a band that's been around that long). Xtifr tälk 11:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Weak keep based on the information added. I'd still like to see more verifiability of the claims to notability that were added, or some evidence that Tilt Records is either a subsidiary of a major label or an "important indie". Xtifr tälk 00:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking over their website I see they have released four albums on Tilt Records, they've posted reviews from numerous magazines and websites, etc. This article needs expansion, not deletion. JubalHarshaw 18:33, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.B. Burns[edit]

C.B. Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A person who played in one game in major league baseball. There are no references, nor articles that link to this page. Somehow i think that having one at bat does not make him notable. Borjon22 16:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Professional baseball player. Westenra 16:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:BIO as an athlete who has played in the top league of his sport. -- Whpq 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major league baseball player, one of a select few with a 1.000 batting average and one at-bat. I added a reference. Edison 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. --Oakshade 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we do with all professional ball players. Yamaguchi先生 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagerolling (finance)[edit]

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

A protological term, 127 Ghits all pointing to a single product offered by a single company. Disguised advertising MNewnham 16:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - Google links it to just the one company. Pete Fenelon 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daysleepers[edit]

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

non notable band Brianyoumans 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be non-notable. No reliable sources show up in a search, which yields <750 hits. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete two self-released EPs, nothing else that seems to meet WP:MUSIC, nothing at Allmusic Guide. Xtifr tälk 11:41, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wm. Wildes[edit]

Kevin Wm. Wildes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. Fails WP:BIO and Notability in academics. Links only to the University page. Eclectek C T

  • Keep I do take offense to this. Schoolwork this week has prevented me from further completing the article, but I assure you I will. As a president of what US News and World Reports considers a top tier school, he certainly passes the "average college professor test". He is very respected in his field on bioethics and has appeared on important shows such as Meet the Press and Larry King Live to give the church's perspective on issues like Terri Schivo and partial birth abortion, his opinions have been featured in the New York Times' op-ed section. Am I not neutral? Have I missed sources? Is your only basis for this that I used information from another article?--Patrickneil 19:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not a personal attack. I have no problem with the sources or neutrality. Simply, the article doesn't meet notability in my opinion. Eclectek C T 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep University presidents are fairly notable. I added three references from independent publications which talk about him. He also wrote a textbook which is described in the article. Edison 20:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. JamesMLane t c 01:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep President of a university and an author should positivly be kept. I think that it could be expanded further with a list of his writtings. Markco1 14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestling promotion Dsreyn 16:39, 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.--Húsönd 22:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sapphire (astral projection writer)[edit]

Sapphire (astral projection writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be little more than self-promotion, I have been researching OBE and related areas for many years and have never heard of this individual. His books are no doubt self-published (and I note all this year) and contain characteristic poor grammar. Interestingly, his reviews on Amazon all contain the same poor grammar; I only mention this as the reviews have been cited to backup notability on the article's talk page. Solar 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Worldcat can't find any of these books. You're right: clearly all the Amazon reviews were written by the same person as this article (not a fluent English speaker, it would seem). Fan-1967 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As a writer s/he has not received multiple independent reviews of xyr work. --Charlene 21:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:BIO and author of non-notable books per WP:BK. They don't even show up on worldcat. Pascal.Tesson 05:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shameful. The Crying Orc 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy delete and please salt the site of the accident - gibberish by a crank/self-promoter. Pete Fenelon 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krista and Tatiana Simms[edit]

Krista and Tatiana Simms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non notable Buivndsaaas 17:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda harrell[edit]

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

A community published poet and author, one book sales ranking lower than 2 million on amazon. MNewnham 17:10, 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.--Húsönd 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chance to chance[edit]

Chance to chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable. In fact it doesn't even exist yet, and hasn't been published by the author's own admission. An "Importance to the [sic] Society" section has been added to the bottom since I added the proposed deletion template to the article before (which was then deleted by someone not signed in). However, even if it was a book of tremendous importance to society, it hasn't been published, it hasn't been reviewed by anyone (as far as I know), and I think that is article is merely a the author's attempt at publicity (it appears to be the sole reference to this book on the entire web). Therefore, I suggest deletion.Furby100 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A seventh grader is writing a book (that he started last month) and hopes to publish it someday? Not even close to meeting WP:V or WP:N. -- Fan-1967 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unpublished works by high schoolers for sure. — brighterorange (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ya, WP:NOT a crystal ball. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - come back when it's published. Or do I mean 'if'? Self-plug. Pete Fenelon 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newegg. Useful content can be merged from the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 19:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABS Computer Technologies[edit]

ABS Computer Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatant advertising from Abscomputers (talk · contribs). I don't see evidence that the company meets WP:CORP. -- Fan-1967 17:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be Speedied This definitely meets the criteria of db-spam. There is no mention of the history of the company, nor of its notability in the world. Also, per nom, it fails WP:CORP. Diez2 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable PC maker. I'm surprised people here have never heard of them (of perhaps they forgot). As for WP:V from WP:RS, here's a PC Magazine article about them [35]. Some CNET reviews of their current desktop PC's here [36] and it's clear from CNET also that they're a prolific laptop maker here [37]. I'm finding alot more WP:RS reviews of their PC's, like these: [38][39]. --Oakshade 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Weak Keep or Merge to Newegg as ABS is now a subsidiary of Newegg. Still a notable subsidiary, but I have no problem with the merging. --Oakshade 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - WP:SPAM for some grotty back-bedroom box-shifter. Pete Fenelon 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them, valid company making valid products. Leave your nazi attitude and practices at home. Is this article going to take your precious bandwidth?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mitchell (businessman)[edit]

Scott Mitchell (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No independent, reliable sources verify any of the assertions in the article except that Mitchell is the CEO of Think Partnership - which is adequately covered in Think's article. Despite months of editors attempting to make this article worthy of inclusion, appropriate sources for information have not been found. Because of the lack of coverage of Mitchell by independent sources, he does not yet appear to merit an article in Wikipedia. Siobhan Hansa 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would almost think of this as an ego-boosting self-advertisement. It is not sourced well and there are no independent sources. Authors of this article spammed other articles to link to this one including changing links on the Scott Mitchell footballer page to point to here. Scott Mitchell's son even created a wiki page for himself at one point which was speedily deleted. Even the Think Partnership wiki seems to have been created just to list his name. Does not meet criteria.RedBirdI55 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I think Forbes is a reliable source who has verified the information. Also, almost all the information was verified in SEC filings. My read of this situation is that RedBird (the name of the mascot for Illinois State University) was offended when someone tried to add Mitchel; and several other CEO's listed on ISU's own noteable alumni business page, to the notable alumni list. He constantly removed Mitchell and all Alumni despite the fact that arean football quarterbacks were left on. I think that this whole thing is quite rediculous. When I look back at the history, I see many reliable sources were removed. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.83.78.67 (talk)
    • Comment. Your "READ" of the situation is wrong and doesn't go with AGF. My reasons for wanting the deletion are stated above. There are others who would like this deleted as well if you look at the discussion of the main article. Once again I think this article is self-promotional and the Think article covers all that is needed. ISU was just one of the many articles that were spammed to promote this one. RedBirdI55 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I've looked back at the deleted references and I do think that (1) sources like Forbes, Bloomberg, and the United States Security and Exchange Commission are all very valid sources and (2) the CEO of a large public company traded on the American Stock Exchange and the founder of several businesses in the United States worth hundreds of millions of dollars is notable. I strongly believe that this article should be cleaned up, proper references added back, and should not be deleted. There does seem to be some evidence that this article was vandalized. There are many other biographies on Wikipedia of much less notable people that should be looked into. This vandalism is quite preposterous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.172.203.235 (talk)
    • Comment the deleted references have not been to appropriate content for the assertions they are backing up - the forbes link was to a profile which contained a part of a press release from Think Partnership and some financial details on the company. It was not a non-trivial piece written by someone independent of the subject. So far, despite months of requests, no sources have been found that meet this standard (which is our regular standard for inclusion). The SEC link may be useful, but at the moment it's just a link to a list of dozens of financial statements. It's not clear what facts it backs up. This has been detailed on the article talk page, but no response there from anyone who thinks this article is worth keeping. --Siobhan Hansa 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't Delete ::This is quite ridiculous. I did research on this before and his name is all over the place. In the world of online advertising and internet businesses, he is very notable. This article should be cleaned up and not removed. This is vandalism and I'm definitely going to complain about it. Here are some links from some very simple research. They back up all of the information in this article and are from very reputable, independent sources like Reuters, Barons, Microsoft, and the SEC. This is the most blatant display of this I have ever seen. Why don't you guys go after the actors that have had one extra spot on one commercial ten years ago on here? Why do you have anything against businesses? Certainly, they can be notable enough for inclusion?

Reuters: http://www.investor.reuters.wallst.com/stocks/OfficerProfile.asp?rpc=66&symbol=THK&ID=671940 United States Security and Exchange Commission: http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.v1866.d.htm http://sec.edgar-online.com/1999/06/15/10/0001047469-99-024112/Section13.asp Barrons: http://www.smartmoney.com/barrons/briefingbooks/index.cfm?page=executives&origin=wsj&mod=2_0471&symbol=THK&news-symbol=THK Entrepreneurial Legends: http://www.topbusinessentrepreneurs.com/profiles/scott-mitchell.html IT World Magazine: http://www.itworld.com/App/441/CWD010402STO59095/ Interactive Press Release: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_May_15/ai_62082202 Internet News Magazine: http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/519771 Steve Balmer (President of Microsoft) and Mitchell Speech Transcript: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/09-26enterprise2000.mspx Forbes: http://www.forbes-global.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=894058

Staceywhite 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment As I have also noted on the article talk page these links do not establish notability for Mitchell, and most of them are reprints of press release information, rather than independently researched articles about Mitchell. These are the same assertions as appear to have been made for months, and requests for better sources have not produced anything worthwhile. --Siobhan Hansa 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just as a side note I think that some of these "don't deletes" are from this small circle of friends who promote this article or maybe just 2 people in general. I agree with Wahkeenah in that some of these accounts are used solely to promote this article. Not sure if the person who redirected a link for the quarter back Scott Mitchell in World Bowl II to point to this page but I think things like that show self-promotion. [40] I don't know what the rules are for situations like this but I thought it might be worth a mention since I find it strange that they used similar prose such as "Don't Delete" instead of the usual "Keep". Believe it or not I have nothing against Scott as well.RedBirdI55 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per norm. Advertising with single purpose accounts. Jazzy joe 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G11 and so tagged. So full of weasel words that no cleanup will do. Needs complete re-write from the ground up. Most of the links in the article are to statutory financial disclosures for listed companies (brief bio, earnings, stock options), and do not constitute "multiple non-trivial media coverage". The article, whilst not exactly plagiarised, is pretty obviously re-worked from the entrepreneurial legends bio. The other links are where he supplies quotes, and is not the primary subject. Ohconfucius 09:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested I feel that this deletion is unfounded and potentially vandalistic. The sources are from very reliable sources. The two people contending that this page is advertising assert that the sources are unreliable and not independent although I think the United States Security and Exchange Commission is a much more reliable source and has a much higher burden of proof to do fact checking than most sources on Wikipedia. I also think that this person is notable because of the size of businesses he has started, the significance he has in his field of online advertising, and the young age of his accomplishments. I firmly believe that much of the history of this page was “staged” or set up by one individual that doesn’t want this page included. Please carefully consider all of the facts before making your decision. I trust that an careful but informed independent third party evaluation of the facts will bring the right decision to effect. 213.83.78.67 09:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the above IP address has placed two entries here. Wahkeenah 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has looked like blatant advertising from Day 1. I believe I am the one who first challenged it, when it showed up on the Illinois State University page in "Notable alumni". And when at least one editor pushing for retaining this article admits that Scott Mitchell is his former employer, it reinforces that viewpoint: "I just want to know what in the world you have against Scott Mitchell. He is my former employer of whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. You keep removing him from the Notable Alumni section of the Illinois State University entry yet he is listed on by their cited website as a notable alumni. I would simply like an explaination." [sic] That was unsigned on my talk page, but it was posted by the red-linked User:Gregcox at 06:51, 15 November 2006. That user's sole purpose as a user seemed to be to add to the Scott Mitchell page as well as the page of the business he operates, called Think Partnership, on the 15th and 16th. You can read into that what you will. Also, it is worth pointing out that the likewise-red-linked User:Staceywhite's work since coming on board in September has been focused solely on this small set of articles, along with Orland Park, Illinois, for the purpose of listing Mitchell as a notable native. In looking back, this apparently started in April, with another single-purpose User:Greggborne. Entries in the interim were from various IP addresses. As I said elsewhere, I don't have anything specifically against Mr. Mitchell, I don't know who he is. Meanwhile, I could easily write about how wonderful Edward B. Rust, Jr. is to work for, but that would not be appropriate either. Speaking of which, I don't see Rust listed in IWU's "Notable Alumni". I don't know why that would be, but this much I can guarantee you: Rust's company is a lot larger than Mitchell's is. Wahkeenah 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been following this article for a while - all of the "references" just seem to be rehashed press releases. --Charlesknight 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge to the article for the company. Edison 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete this is a simple biography of a person has obviously made a significant contribution to his field. WIth all due respect to Edward B. Rust, Jr. and State Farm, he is not the founder and State Farm is a $2B business in a $4 TRILLION industry. I think this guy seems much more notable than most athletes and actors on Wikipedia as many of them have been in one season or in one movie. 207.145.28.2 04:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not at all obvious, beyond the company's own self-promotion statements. Meanwhile, one writeup said Mitchell had fewer than 100 employees in 1999. How many does he have now? What is his company's annual revenue at present? Wahkeenah 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete To answer your question, according to SEC filings (which I do find reliable actually and feel the burden and standard for proof is much higher than reporters and media) the company has over 300 employees and will do over $100 million in revenue. His most recent previous company now has 28,000 employees.
  • Don't Delete - Notable
However, the more significant test is whether Mitchell is notable. Given the series of interviews with him, the purchasing of almost $100 million of companies in 18 months in one reasonably small business segment, at a reasonably young age makes him notable especially to the industry that he is contributing to. I would agree with the fact that he is at least as notable as most of the athletes, actors, and authors on here. For businessmen, their companies are their contribution. In fact, many of the few businessmen that are on Wikipedia have almost all of their information that related to filings and press releases made by their company - see State Farm's Edward B. Rust, Jr as mentioned by a previous poster who has no references, no external links, resources, or news. At the end of the day, this is a well backed up article, with facts that are clearly backed up by valid SEC filings which have a very high burden of proof. Finally, there is independent literature on the subject in the case of several audio and reporter interviews as listed on resources.
  • Don't Delete – No Advertising
The administrator Nae'blis removed the G11 from this article because there was no blatant advertising in it. There is actually no advertising at all and the article must be dealt with as a BLP (Biography of a Living Person). There are only facts stated in the biography article, these facts are all backed up by reliable independent sources (yes, I agree that the company submitted information to the SEC but the SEC just doesn't publish gibberish to the world investment community but are bound by a very high standard of accuracy and fact checking and people submit facts to reporters as well and reporters have a lower burden of proof for what they publish then the SEC), and this person is notable to his area. Further, this article must be dealt with as a BLP (Biography of a Living Person) and as such meets all of the requirements of (1) Verifiable (2) Neutral Point of View and (3) No original research. This Biography of a Notable Living Person is not doing anykind of adverting at all.
  • Don't Delete – Verifiable
This article is one of the more verifiable Biographies of a Living Person that Wikipedia has. Every single fact in the biography is included in at least one of the supporting Resource articles. Those resource articles are being provided by the United States Security and Exchange Commission, Forbes, Barrons, Audio Interviews, all verify each and every fact in his biography.
  • Don't Delete – Neutral Point of View
This article has been written with only third party facts drawn from many different sources. The facts are simply presented with no point of view applied.
  • Don't Delete – No Original Research
There are no assumptions, assertions, perspectives or original research that has been applied to the biography.
207.145.28.2 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (note user just blocked for vandalism to this page Siobhan Hansa 11:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Yes that's right the above SIX "Don't Deletes" were added by one person who was banned. Is this a case of sockpuppetry in the fact that all these anon ip's with a few edits use the term "Don't Delete"? RedBirdI55 05:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Maybe it is time to block this guys ip. Also, I've never seen anyone vote dont delete before. --Banana04131 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was just using the term "Don't Delete" because other people were. My apologies. Happy Thanksgiving! 207.145.28.2
    • Comment And all of them from your subnet. Wahkeenah 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Don't Delete or whatever: for what it is worth, this person is included in the latest Marqui's Who's Who as well as the Madison's Who's Who Registry of Executives and Professionals. The biographies are basically the same except for additional family information. Also, Wahkeenah, I don't really have a horse in this race...sort to speak... but your Edward B. Rust, Jr. does not have any references or external sources for any of the information in that article. I am uncertain exactly why this article is being considered for deletion. It is unclear to me what the criteria is. However, the controversy over the article on both sides of the debate should give the administrator pause and encourage careful consideration. 130.94.134.210 07:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wonder how many of the sites about Mitchell used wikipedia as their source? In regard to Ed Rust, it looks to me like whoever wrote the article lifted a lot of it directly from the State Farm Insurance website, whose main page is [41] and whose page on Rust is [42]. State Farm is America's largest auto insurer and its largest Fire and Casualty insurer, and does a fair business in other areas such as Life Insurance. The price they pay for their size, of course, is that they get whacked pretty hard when hurricanes come along. The company has many thousands of employees across the nation, and it's clear Rust is a mover-and-shaker nationally. Whether Rust merits a page separate from the State Farm page, though, may be questionable... but if he doesn't deserve one, Mitchell certainly wouldn't. It also wouldn't be my place to write about Rust, since I come from a biased viewpoint. My complaint about Mitchell is not with him as such, it's that this article and several articles connected to it are vanity entries written either by him or by people who work or have worked for him, for the likely purpose of trying to expand his business, which is not the mission of wikipedia, as I understand it. What made it stand out, amongst the many one-time vanity entries that people have tried to post on the ISU page, is that it kept coming back, so I figured something was afoot with this one, and I was right. Oh, and by the way, to correct a slight mistake by one of Mitchell's proponents somewhere up the page, State Farm is not a TWO billion dollar business, it is a FIFTY billion dollar business, so it's a bit more of a dent in the insurance industry than that user thought. Wahkeenah 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Note to Closing Admin Please consider that many or most of the keep or "Don't Delete's" were from IPs who's only or first edits appear to be for this debate. There are many many many CEOs of much larger companies who do not have entries. This is an encyclopedia not a business directory. RedBirdI55 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read all of the policies and all of the information on this page. I am still unclear on what criteria this page should be deleted for. If there is a notable argument, I have yet to hear a compelling one and in fact this article's subject certainly meets the search engine test. If it is a source argument, I have found many substantive sources already listed in the article. If it is an original research argument, I do not see where the original research is. If there is an advertising or self promotion concern, I just do not see any advertising or self promotion, blatant or otherwise, anywhere in this article. I think that this article should fit into the guidelines and be subject to the requirements of any Biography of Living Persons as per Wikipedia standards and guidelines and as such meet all those criteria. 210.11.188.11 06:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Further Research: Easily meets WP:BIO as he was profiled/interviewed frequently as shown in his CampaignStreet interview, his SpotLight on DMConfidential interview, and his Wall Street Interview. We also must take into account WP:BIAS as there seems to be some biased here against certain businesses and sertain CEO's. Subject of multiple non-trivial published works just do a Google for his name. This whole debate is a perfect example of systemic bias in my opinion. AFD is not a means to solicit for sources. That is what the {sources} tag is for. However, I see plenty of sources. Also we now know for sure that he is mentioned in several Who's Who books. Searches for his own books on internet development and marketing on [Amazon.com] and [BarnesAndNoble.com] returned his books in stock that are regularly sold by these major book retailers. His first business (Tunes.com) was sold for $180 million and owned RollingStone Magazine which is notable to the music industry. His second company is HSN.com and is a $500 million ecommerce site notable to television retailing and ecommerce and his third business is one of the 5 largest online advertising agencies and is publicly traded on the AMEX. Sorry for the brain dump here. Just confused as to why we are debating this in the first place. 207.67.145.205 12:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Smörgåsbord, hence redirect to HTML element. Edit history can be used to merge, request transwikiing or other actions at editorial discretion but clearly the article as is fails WP:NOT a how-to guide. ~ trialsanderrors 19:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table (HTML)[edit]

Seems more like a guide/howto documentation than an article, the subject seems also a bit to specific for an encyclopedic article, if not deleted, then at least it should be moved to wikibooks or something simlar. →AzaToth 17:41, 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 delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 19:43Z

Listography[edit]

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

Was PROD'd shortly after it was created many months ago, but the PROD was contested[45]. This service fails WP:WEB. The "launch date" of this service is listed as May 2006, which is also when the article was created. Apparent advertisement for an apparently NN service. --Czj 18:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be Speedied This article definitely meets the criteria of db-web, and should be speedily deleted. Diez2 18:20, 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 Keep. Jayden54 10:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients: A[edit]

List of Knight's Cross recipients: A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This award seems to have been handed out like candy. Besides, Wikipedia should not be a host for Nazi trivia. Denni talk 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a historically notable list. --Czj 18:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable Nazi award handed out during WWII. Google itself has about 3.5 million hits on it. Diez2 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 128 names in the list for A, times 26 letters in the alphabet = an estimated 3328 recipients overall, which is manageable — compare List of Medal of Honor recipients (3461 recipients). It's not like we're talking about Purple Hearts here. Demiurge 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Scienter 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of precedent for documenting the recipients of various countries' top military awards: there's the Medal of Honor list Demiurge cites, and we have biographies of every recipient of the Victoria Cross. The mere fact that this award was handed out by the Nazis hardly disqualifies it. (Indeed, deleting this list merely because of the Nazi association would be a flagrant violation of WP:NPOV, which - believe it or not - forbids us to condemn the Nazis!)
    Note that, as I observe above, this is just one part of what appears to be an ongoing project to document the Knight's Cross recipients in a series of separate lists. To delete one and leave the others would be rather strange. But as there seems to be no actual reason to delete this, I guess the problem doesn't arise. — Haeleth Talk 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an inherently manageable list of recipients of a notable award (and not exactly one which is likely to keep expanding, unlike many other military awards). Attempting to censor things because of their association with nasty people isn't a useful argument. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo source is cited. The editor may be typing them in from a book or from an archive somewhere. If that is public domain, it could be put on Wikisource. If they are getting it from an online source, it would be better to have an article about the award (when created, its history, its purpose, number of recipients, etc) and a link to the online source. If it is a copyrighted book then it is a copyvio. There is no need to list each recipient in such a cumbersome list as this. I hope the next step isn't to start creating an individual article for each recipient. Edison 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikisource doesn't take reference data, and this is as appropriate as a list of Medal of Honor winners or recipients of any other major military award. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because contrary to the nominator's opinion, the Knight's cross was not handed out like candy. Cleary User:Denni has no conception of the scale of WW2 if he thinks that the list of citations is long. Nor should User:Denni's personal prejudice against Nazism have anything to do with the content of this encyclopedia, which as far as I know is not a repository solely of leftist/liberal propaganda. The Crying Orc 09:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historically notable list. bbx 08:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JR Cigars[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Doesn't appear notable. Only assertion is that it's the largest tobacco store in North Carolina. No sources. NawlinWiki 18:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The article really needs to be expanded, but since the claim is not really verifiable, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diez2 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not notable. Only contested by article creator, who reasonably should be expected to be ignored by the G11 criteria. I would not object to this being speedied and salted. --Improv 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's something significant to say about this store. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with Agent 86's expansion. There's a world of difference between "a large cigar store in Burlington" and "one of the largest wholesalers [of] cigar-related products in the United States". Zetawoof(ζ) 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is why I'm leery of G11. This company is a major retailer of cigars in the United States. I've expanded and sourced the article, and I believe it now meets the criteria of WP:CORP, among other things. Agent 86 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major cigar retailer in NYC and the US. Alansohn 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the largest retailers & distributors of Cigars in the nation. Article needs some work, but it all should be fairly easy to source. Keep and fix it. Dman727 02:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dman727. --Oakshade 05:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deal, Delete ~ trialsanderrors 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US)[edit]

Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list of game show episodes isn't needed. Look at the detail of each episode: it just describes what the models wear, guest stars (which is only once in a while), and what the contestant won. Purely fancruft. If we had an article for each season of a long running game show such as Price as Right, Wikipedia would be flooded with useless information such as Bob Barker wore a brown suit and so on. RobJ1981 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Remove excess information if necessary, but a season of this show is notable in its own right, and the season page is preferable to dozens of episode pages. Just because it's a bit crufty doesn't mean it can't be cleaned up. --Czj 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show has regularly ranked in the top twenty U.S. broadcast network shows since its inception and has been widely discussed by reliable sources of all kinds. The material meets any reasonable notability standard. There's no justification for deleting this article while leaving in place many other episode-list articles, often for shows with smaller audiences. Casey Abell 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I mean come on having a list of Star Trek episodes is one thing but a listing of a gameshow. Think about it if you cut out the excess you'd have nothing at all.Deathawk 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is absolutely nothing here but trivia and original research. The show is notable, but individual episodes absolutely are not. What next, List of Countdown Conundrums? — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is other seasons for Deal or No Deal on Wikipedia. I don't know how to do a mass afd, so could someone do it? There is Deal or No Deal, Season 2 (US) for the U.S version, and 3 articles for the UK version (one for each season).RobJ1981 23:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominate the others too. Game shows don't need different articles for each season (the same thing with news show, sports show, even wrestling shows). TJ Spyke 00:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything notable about the season can be mentioned in a few sentences in the main article for the game show. I hope we don't have to have an article for every season of every game show. The Price is Right has been on 5o years, and has only 4 articles, one for each new version of the show. The edisode descriptions do not cite a source other than the show for the descriptions. Edison 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this even being argued? There shouldn't be an article for seasons of a Game Show. Delete it. It has no value. What's gonna be on the page, the dialogue? the contestants? -69.67.234.9 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Keep -- all other series have episode guides, and this one is no exception. -- azumanga 12:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. So any article should be kept because other articles exist, then? -- Mikeblas 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response -- To be blunt, if this episode guide goes, then all others should go. It's as simple as that. -- azumanga 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Episode guides for series which tell a story are one thing - such pages can display information about important story developments in each episode. But that's very different to a page that does little more than describing the wardrobe worn by the ladies holding briefcases.--Tiberius47 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This content isn't encyclopedic, nor is it notable. -- Mikeblas 15:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response -- Deal or No Deal's not notable? Episode details not encyclopedic? You HAVE to be kidding me. True -- some improvements need to be made, but wholesale deletion is not the answer. -- azumanga 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response -- I second that!
  • Quick Keep -- As above, other episode guides exist. There are some very interesting details here. People are editing and reading it. Are we ready to delete other episode guides and episode articles, such as every episode article for Seinfeld, the show about nothing? User101010 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I have one of two suggestions here. Either:
    • Keep and edit it down to the basic information (e.g., who won what and a brief summation of the game). Agree that there is no need to write down such minute details as what the models wore (unless it particularly stands out); the summaries themselves are too long. In the season 1 guide, I had edited down the summaries because of this very problem, which is one of (I'm sure) several reasons why this article was afd. — Now have to change to delete, since the Season 2 guide has been deleted; one goes with the other, I guess. That said, a comment: Is there a precedence we're setting here? If yes, then this overall subject would probably be a good idea for discussion on another venue; if not, then I suppose not. Thanks anyhow, and remember the new TVIV wiki episode guide for this program, where I sense this may belong. [[Briguy52748 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Move content (or rewrite it) to [TVIV wiki]. Again, the same standard would apply.
All this counts as just one vote. [[Briguy52748 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Quick Keep - This has already been reduced in size; why remove it now?
  • Strong Keep All other tv shows have episode guides and Deal or No Deal is one of the most popular TV shows in the World. 24.226.160.237
  • Keep or transwiki per above. Please note 1 vs. 100 is also up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMK152 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete ~ trialsanderrors 17:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1 vs. 100 episodes[edit]

List of 1 vs. 100 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An episode guide for a game show isn't needed. Not much room for expansion here. What the contestant won, and a few other notes for each episode isn't much. Make a gameshow Wiki, and put this there (along with all the Deal or No Deal episode lists). RobJ1981 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This link], per RobJ1981's suggestion, could be used by someone to create the gameshow wiki he speaks of; I simply don't have time because of work and other committments. [[Briguy52748 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
      • Addendum to comment above — A new page has been created at TVIV, where future episodic information should be included (assuming the afd debate ends in a delete). At that time, a link should be provided on the main 1 vs. 100 page to that page. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • I'd like to know how I, as a Wikipedia reader, can verify any of what this article says about last month's shows. As far as I can tell, this article is unverifiable. The only ways that I can check what the article says about the 2006-10-20 episode are either to burgle some television studio or to power up my handy time machine, it appears. Uncle G 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can you imagine what 30 years of episodes of The Price Is Right would look like? Besides, shows without a cast, a plot, or guest stars have absolutely no need for episode guides. Caknuck 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like 30 years of Samoans carrying around Bob Barker while he slowly ages - and his face grows tighter. With respect to this AfD, Delete - with respect to new game shows, one article per show is surely enough. --Charlene 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Caknuck. - Deathawk 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There is absolutely nothing here but trivia and original research. The show is notable, but individual episodes absolutely are not. What next, List of Countdown Conundrums? — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I have one of two suggestions here. Either:
    • Keep and edit it down to the basic information (e.g., who won what and a brief summation of the game). Agree that there is no need to write down such minute details as what the models wore (unless it particularly stands out); the summaries themselves are too long. In the season 1 guide, I had edited down the summaries because of this very problem, which is one of (I'm sure) several reasons why this article was afd.
    • Move content (or rewrite it) to [TVIV wiki]. Again, the same standard would apply.
  • All that said, RobJ1981 has a very good suggestion - creating a game show Wiki and placing all relavent game show-related material (as well as creating other game show-type pages) there. In any case, this comment equals vote, either to keep or move. [[Briguy52748 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
    • You haven't answered a basic question: Where's the list of "who won what" outside of Wikipedia against which readers can verify this article? Uncle G 18:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncle G — tape the episode and watch it. That said, I see where the "tape it and watch it to see if it's true," while it seemingly is an acceptable for verification, isn't, so rather than get into an exhaustive debate about this episode's merits — personally, I could have cared less whether it existed in the first place — I'll change my vote to delete (but keept the move with editing to [tviv.com TVIV], because it may be acceptable as an article on that wikispace). [[Briguy52748 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep or transwiki - This article can be transwikied, if it is not kept. -AMK152 13:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - see comments on Deal or No Deal above. Pete Fenelon 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number 5 in V for Vendetta[edit]

The number 5 in V for Vendetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speculative original research and numerology. Not encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 18:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Andreas Wagner[edit]

Milo Andreas Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fixing malformed nomination. Article previously nominated in March 2005, although that may be a different person, I can't tell. User:Gandygatt stated on the original VFD page "Seems again like a vanity page, reasons for deletion same as last time!" No vote by nominator, proceedual nomination -- saberwyn 19:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability and no sources that satisfy WP:BIO. JGardner 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 45 ghits for "A Swarm of Wasps" + Wagner, and the only pertinent ones were for Amazon, Ebay and the subject's Web site. Nothing in the article asserts subject is any more notable than other young, self-published poets. Caknuck 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry I did not make it clear before, vote for deletion as the article is of no use to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.36.198 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by Mailer Diablo —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-27 21:02Z

Kahit Wala Ka Na[edit]

Kahit Wala Ka Na (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bump from speedy. Said to be a hoax. Previously deleted via prod. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 19:22Z

Central GMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of programs broadcast by CGMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeopardy! (Philippine Gameshow) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to add the above to this AfD, they have all been tagged as hoaxes a by a Filipino editor. Editors familiar with Filipino TV may want to take a look at contribs of User:Tonyboy092392 and User:Booze broads and bullets one of who may be a sockpuppet of the other, nearly all edits for both are on Filipino TV articles and it looks like Humalik Ka Sa Lupa had pagemove vandalism. The reference for Central GMA's "website" points to a blog, googling doesn't seem to come up with anything on this "network" or the Filipino Jeopardy program described in the article. Tubezone 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding Princess Charming, newly created by User:Booze broads and bullets. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 19:25Z

Comment Quarl, I corrected you there (Prince Charming predates television by a bit...) BTW, 125.60.185.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried to pull the AfD notice off the CGMA articles twice, may be a sock of one of the users above. Tubezone 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, did not google all that came up was a title for a 1989 film by the same name [46]]--Dakota 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax or not, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JGardner 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I've been watching the Philippine Jeopardy! article for some time to see if someone raises it as a hoax. The text seems to have been copied from the Jeopardy! article and the US dollar values were replaced with Philippine pesos. This show and the others on the Central GMA network may be someone's fantasy, and as such would be completely unverifiable. That's certainly the case if an "official website" for a TV network is a blog that appears to be authored by that person. Tinlinkin 06:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. A fantastic piece of fiction, if ever there was one. --- Tito Pao 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. I thought I was seeing things. --Howard the Duck 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Here are my reasons: 1. There has never been a Filipino version of Jeopardy!, 2. CGMA is just a fictional TV network and 3. Most of the entries from the said articles were copy-pasted from other articles like the list of programs on CGMA. -Danngarcia 08:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we throw this snowball under the jeepney now? ;-) Tubezone 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Abbott[edit]

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 19:48Z

  • Delete Article doesn't assert notability. Being related to and being trained by notable people doesn't infer notability. Caknuck 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing approaching WP:MUSIC or other notability. Weregerbil 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability whatsoever. DannyIndigo 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Noboa[edit]

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 20:02Z

  • Delete - there's no assertion of notability here, or indication that this is anything other than WP:VANITY. --Hyperbole 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity page. page creator's only contribution--Nobunaga24 22:34, 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 Keep. Sheer numbers, ignoring anonymous and new voters would be "no consensus", but I hope I'm not risking my reasonably new and recallable adminship by marking it Keep from reading the arguments instead of counting votes here. There seems to be a cult following from the sheer number of Google hits, a sixth of a documentary film, and a few articles from reliable sources, such as the Washington Times, and an NBC station. (It would be nice if the Washington Times ref were added to the article.) True, the articles are primarily about the doll, but only by a narrow margin; he's the sole creator, and the articles don't just mention him in passing, they devote a noticeable part of their length to interviewing him. That's not worldwide fame, but it's enough for Wikipedia:Notability (people). AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Bob Smith[edit]

Normal Bob Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-20 20:06Z

The admin closing this discussion might be interested in reading this discussion, which started on November 9 and seems to have ended on November 19, the day before the article was created. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This was recreated from a previously deleted article. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith)-Deathawk 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a recreation -- see my comment below. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-23 00:42Z
  • Speedy Delete The old AfD is over a year old, but that doesn't mean one can just up and recreate the article. Take it to WP:DRV. Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Smith is a cultural phenomenon and appeared in many media. Deleting this article looks very much like censorship. --Djudge 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Djudge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Normal Bob Smith is controversial and reviled in many circles, he is a cultural icon. This article is valid and should be kept.--Elektrared 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Elektrared (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Smith is indeed a controversial figure. However, he is also a culturally relevant person, and so his article should be kept. This has been the accepted method taken with other internet personalities. For example, Sean Riley and George Ouzanian, AKA Seanbaby and Maddox, respectively, have Wikipedia pages. Bob Smith is as famous as either of these two. This article should not have been deleted in the first place.--Juppongatana 18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Juppongatana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete recreated article. IrishGuy talk 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author and I created this article from scratch (except for the Urban Outfitters and Passion of the Christ entries) and have no personal involvement with Bob Smith, other than I think he's noteworthy. -- alienlovesong 01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable and relevant. -- Chisrule 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Chisrule (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No solid assertions of notability, resposted content. To Juppongatana, note that just because there are articles on Maddox and Seanbaby does not mean NBS deserves one. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've heard of him, at least. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the primary notability criterion does apply: One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. He has, for example, been the subject of this article in the Washington Times, or this article on the side of a catholic organisation with 60 employee. There have been other occasions when he made it to the news, but I think those two references, in addition to the high google-ranking of his page, should be enough for a keep. Sceptic Watcher 13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Sceptic Watcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Washington Times article is not about Bob Smith, but about the Jesus Dress-up, which indeed seems notable. To draw a comparison: Barbie is notable, but not every person who has ever designed a Barbie doll is notable. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor comparison, Jesus Dress-up has only one designer. Plus, it's hard to visit the site without noting the man behind it. It's clearly signed and very inviting to contact the designer. --Djudge 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be that as it may, the references only assert the notability of that which has been designed, not of the person who has designed the Jesus dress-up. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for keeping this article has been met. I don't see why this is such an issue, unless one objects to the subject matter itself, which can be seen as disrespectful and controversial -- and deleting it on that issue would constitute censorship. Chompsillisay 18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Chompsillisay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— 65.125.163.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way sockpuppets and SPAs will make us let the page stay and rot on WP. Speedy Delete per these concerns and prior AFD. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that my account is no sockpuppet of anyone. I only now did start to work on the english wikipedia, but if you are so distrustful, you can look for my account Skeptischer Beobachter in the german wikipedia, where I work on articles about Tibetan Buddhism since about two months. I think before you make such accusations, you should have a way to verify them. With the very same right, I could assume that you are a sockpuppet. Sceptic Watcher 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is accusing you of anything. Slgrandson spoke of sockpuppets and SPAs (link and italics added by me). Fact of the matter is that you only have three edits, two of which are to this AfD and the other one being to the article's talk page. In such cases, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to discount such votes. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I was not aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and unfortunately did not find it. That's why I was only answering to the sockpuppet-part. It may indeed be possible that my account will be a SPA - I don't know yet if I will also work on Tibetan Buddhism and Atheism here. Sceptic Watcher 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the main reason for deleting this article now is not for lack of relevance but because is was deleted before. According to the rules it can't be simply recreated. The deletion can be reviewed and if there is support the admins can undelete the original article. I think this is a good point. My question for the experienced editors: can we ask for a review of the deletion and does support from ASP's for undeletion count? --Djudge 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can request a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Whether new users are in good faith or single purpose accounts has to be determined case by case. Whether their opinions are counted (AfD is not a vote) has to be determined by the closing admin. If the new users come with good arguments and make valid points, their opinions will be taken into consideration. But if they simply stuff the ballot, their votes are usually discounted. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've made several edits to philosophy/religion articles. I do not see the reason why this article is being considered "irrelevant". No reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.82.113 (talk • contribs)
— 74.12.82.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man behind the #1 Google result for "Jesus", as well as being a keynote speaker at some of the most important atheist conventions in America and the feature character of a nationally-recognized and reviewed movie has no reason to be deleted. He is far more influencial and popular than many of his Christian counterparts who have their own pages. See Andy Braunston, Mike MacIntosh, and Jon Courson among others. I hate to accuse and yell the word "censorship" but I don't know if it's just a coincidence the main campaigner for deletion has done a huge volume of work on christian and christianity-related topics. --Meneitherfabio 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This person really does exist, and has achieved some notariety whether or not you like him. Shall we start deleting kidney beans and migraine entries next? What is this, Nazi Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.68.113 (talk • contribs)
— 71.237.68.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that it was recreated without a WP:DRV is enough for me. But it also seems to be a little on the unnotable side... (the bunch of SPAs don't help either). Cbrown1023 20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment. I would like to remind everyone to debate whether the article should be included from fundamentals such as notability, verifiability, media references; does the subject meet WP:BIO? Arguments about "recreation without DRV" don't apply because this article is very different from the previous version (which was 1 sentence during the previous AFD), most likely created by different users; the previous AFD was hardly a concensus at 2 delete "votes" followed by 1 keep "vote". —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-22 20:11Z
  • Delete. The multiple SPAs are not helping here, but I'd be inclined to vote "weak keep" if he had been the subject of Bob Smith, U.S.A., rather than just one of seven subjects. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (noting Quarl's comment above) notability not establihed. Pete.Hurd 20:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has been deleted twice before, and the minor improvements since are still not enough to establish notability, delete and WP:SALT.--MONGO 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find articles about NBS's product, "Jesus Dress Up," but the product is the subject of these, not him. The product would seem to be notable, but not him. JChap2007 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normal Bob Smith has made the news on a few occasions now. He made it when he was dealing with Urban Outfitters and his magnet set, he made it when his website was shut down by religious organizations, he made it when he did some work for Heavy.com and the Mel Gibson Dress-Up - how many times must someone be news before they become noteworthy? He's a major player in the atheist community and has been a topic speaker at atheist conventions. He's been part of a documentary. Controversy and infamy should be sufficient for a Wikipedia article. More specifically, the article doesn't violate any of the Wikipedia rules featured at WP:NOT (Specifically point 5 of "Indiscriminate collection of information"), since the article addresses the cultural impact of Bob's website projects, not the websites themselves. I wholeheartedly think that this article has the notability and verifiability that Wikipedia demands of its articles. As for the implied WP:SPA, the SPA also advises "to assume good faith" - this is the case where I think good faith is in order. Audiolight 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC) — Audiolight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep - I would normally cry "delete" at anything supported by so many SPA's, but I put a little more effort into reviewing this. The subject is a controversial public figure and "Normal Bob Smith" (with quotes around it) yielded approx 39,000 ghits. Those numbers, and the articles written about him (rather than by him) imply a level of notability that justifies keeping this. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - If you omit his own sites, the count drops by a few thousand, but it's still around 36,300. Is that google count enough to indicate notability by itself? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - ghits are a rule-of-thumb tool, and there is no hard and fast threshhold either way. However, the cites indicate that he was the proximate cause of multiple organized protests which were themselves newsworthy events. In other words, he generated enough controversy that independent groups around the country staged protests against him. I gave more weight to that than the ghits alone, since that level of controversy and coverage certainly seems notable. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he evidently has some notoriety per Doc Tropics and others. There is no doctrine of res judicata with AfDs, though there is a rule of thumb that running a second AfD soon after one has failed is an abuse of process. In this case, the last AfD was a successful one but a long time ago with an article in a different form. In the absence of some special reason for salting, nothing prevents the creation of a new article on the same subject matter or requires that any such article be deleted. Metamagician3000 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=normalbobsmith.com sundergod9 November 2006
    • Question - How does one read Alexa results? This appears to say that, while page views have sometimes spiked to a rank in the 40,000-60,000 range, it rarely breaks the top 100,000; never in the past 6 months. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to that link, NormalBobSmith.com has an Alexa ranking of only 294,447. That doesn't even come close to notability. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For comparison: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.skepticality.com :they rank 748,103, this site is their main means of notability, yet there's no controversy about Skepticality, 'no notability' can be dismissed --Djudge 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Skepticality was in fact proposed for deletion at one point; it was withdrawn. And the web site is associated with a well known organization; as it happens, the magazine pictured here is on my coffee table right now. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes Derek and Swoopy rule but their main audience is the skeptic community (myself included) whereas Normal Bob Smith causes controversy in the general public. The reason for not deleting skepticality: STRONG KEEP: 110,000 google hits. Let's again compare, Skepticality now gets 204,000 hits but with doubles omitted this results in 171 links, Normal Bob Smith (with parentheses) gets 38,100 hits but doubles omitted results in 257 links. This points to a much more divers coverage. Anyway, if 110,000 gets a STRONG KEEP, 38,100 must at least be a KEEP. --Djudge 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO IMO. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please give a reason - what does it fail? Audiolight 13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passes WP:BIO IMO: 2 criteria met: subject of published works (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) and large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. --Djudge 11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the Normal Bob Smith fans posting to this page: You are encouraged to improve the article by adding additional references that will demonstrate his notability. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why not, there's far more stupid/irrelivent shit on the wiki thats not up for deletion. Zoift 00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Zoift (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep As Doc Tropic and others have found, he is the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial references at reliable sources. I could care less why he is notable, but there it is. He is notable. Now, just rewrite the article useing only facts found in those sources, and you would have a good article! --Jayron32 06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honestly I am not sure why there is so much controversy here. I had never heard of this guy, but after reading the article (which admittedly needs work) I am thoroughly convinced that he is notable and it seems that the reasons for deletion are getting thinner and thinner (why is the fact that a previous article about him was deleted, in and of itself, necessarily a criteria for deleting this one?) I have always found wikipedia's criteria for notability to be extremely lax anyway, so it seems like this guy makes it in by a wide margin. Dmz5 02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iskcon survey[edit]

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

Duplicate of International Society for Krishna Consciousness, just formatted differently. Little if any data worth merging. Chopper Dave 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ISKCON is already covered in detail in the main article. Ys, GourangaUK 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as baloney by author's request. Yomanganitalk 10:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Economy[edit]

This is an original, satirical essay. The only source is a mechanical textbook. Will Beback · † · 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - AFD closer, please see this admission by the article author [47] "I the author of the work, acknowledge that is baloney and fully support its deletion." [48] It might go to WP:BJAODN. -Will Beback · † · 10:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Glenfield[edit]

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

Article about a New Zealand shopping mall, with no reliable references or indication of notability. Does not pass WP:CORP. Previous attempts at merge were unsuccessful [49]. --Elonka 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Large, perfectly notable shopping centre. Rebecca 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no reliable sources. Or any, for that matter. -Amarkov blahedits 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of sources is not, nor has ever been, a deletion criterion where there is no suggestion of a hoax. Rebecca 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the sources do not EXIST, then yes, it is, and always has been. -Amarkov blahedits 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then it would be a hoax. It is bleedingly obvious, however, that this is not the case, as a Google or Factiva search could provide sources in an instant. Rebecca 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather interesting, then, that if it is so easy, it has not yet been actually done. -Amarkov blahedits 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It hasn't been done for this article as it hasn't for what, 75% of the articles on Wikipedia? That still isn't grounds to delete this article, as it would not be for the rest of the unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. Rebecca 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I just tried, and couldn't do it. Maybe you should, to show me it's possible? -Amarkov blahedits 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you asking for sources for, precisely? It is absurd to have the highest referencing standards on Wikipedia applied solely to shopping centres because of deletionists making a point - this would be far more useful applied to living persons. Rebecca 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two non-trivial sources, trivial being defined as "it's on this map" and the like. No blogs/forums/wikis please. -Amarkov blahedits 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Westfield+Glenfield -Wikipedia = about 100,000 ghits ([50]). Far fewer for "Westfield Glenfield" -Wikipedia, but that's because it's often referred to by names like "Westfield Shoppingtown Glenfield" or "Westfield Mall Glenfield". Grutness...wha? 06:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of notability wich is verifiable with independent reliable sources. Edison 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete malls are not inherently notable. Eluchil404 08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI, there is a misplaced keep vote sitting on the article's talk page. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I live in Auckland, on the North Shore - the mall does have a history that's more interesting that most malls'. I know that's not reflected in the article at the moment, but I think it could become a nice, interesting article in time. And generally, I don't think it's trivial enough to delete (what I consider the opposite of thinking it's not notable enough to keep). Furthermore, I think WP:RS can be very well met for this article. It isn't hard, particularly when WP:RS only warns of keeping a NPOV when relying on corporate sources (it doesn't discount them altogether). Since some people are particularly sceptical of this I'll be explicit: [51] is acceptable as a RS, if we watch for NPOV, and no other sources are available (which they are). --Dom 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. although perhaps a merger in a more general article about Westfield i'd consider acceptable. Mathmo Talk 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nah, has to be a keep not merge. looked at the parent company article. no way can it be included anymore than it is already. and as such rather than considering merger i'm upgrading to a strong keep (already is a link to this page from westfield, along with all other ones that are owned) Mathmo Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted, CSD-A3. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in Australian television[edit]

2007_in_Australian_television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is nothing on this page. Enough said! Tmothyh 05:23, 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 Redirect to Antisemitism. The edit history is retained, so editors can merge useful content into that article. No argument has been made that this describes a different concept than antisemitism, just an alternative, and less common, term. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judeophobia[edit]

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

Neologism, simply a definition, wikipedia is not a dictionary .V. 20:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to antisemitism and redirect if a source can be produced supporting its origin. Could be of some historical interest, but it doesn't seem the term ever caught on, and I doubt there's much potential for expansion. Shimeru 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to antisemitism per Shimeru. --DixiePixie 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind [52] (" To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.") 192.132.64.2 23:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there will be no article about the term. The article will be about antisemitism. The merge need only be a sentence or two in the 'history' section of that article detailing Pinsker's alternate term as a point of interest. The primary source is suffient to verify its existence, and secondary sources are not needed unless further claims regarding it are made. Shimeru 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind as well that the quotation also says "to support the use of... a particular term." That includes even if it is merged. The intent behind the neologism article is to prevent obscure words from being put into Wikipedia if they are not indeed widely used. Based on the Wikipedia neologism policy, it seems to me that this has no place as an article or merged into another article. .V. 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is. I feel that people are uncomfortable with antisemitism and want this article deleted. I looked at the page for antisemitism and found that the word "Judeophobia" appeared six times, including a book published by Harvard University and a link to the Zionism and Israel Information Center. The book is subtitled, "Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Ancient World." So the word is not a neologism. But if it were, that is in itself not grounds for deletion. Otherwise nothing new would occur in Wikipedia. The page for antisemitism also contains a section defining the word, so Wikipedia serves as a dictionary as well.

I was glad to have run across this page Having its own page with the banner headline helps make it more prominent. It gets people thinking about the matter.

This article can be designated a stub. But I'm afraid that it will be deleted because people are uncomfortable with the subject.

I was very glad to find this page, as I'm writing a paper that involves this topic, and I found that this term worked perfectly in this context. It might make sense to move it to Wiktionary, but the page should definetely be kept up in some form. --renaissanceboy 23:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 1) a term that survived for 120+ years is not a neologism. 2) Antisemitism is already overloaded and I think Pinsker's quotation is important to understand his reasoning for the term he offered. Therefore if the decision is to merge, let's indeed merge and retain the quote. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor State High School[edit]

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

Lack of notability, nothing in this page meets the parameters outlined in WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. Sufficient precedent has been set on this subject for the removal of school articles that do not meet these qualificiations. 'However', find something that sets this school apart enough to deem it notable and I will reverse my position. Trusilver 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Article is better than it originally was, although I still don't think it lives up to notability standards, I'm fairly open to any new information presented. Trusilver 03:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been stressing over this particular AfD since I nominated it. And the more I'm watching it and digging into web-based sources, the more I am leaning toward thinking this article should be kept. Primarily because I think that there is something notable here, not long after I nominated this article the original writer made an edit at 01:08, 20 November 2006. This edit concerned gang violence and was almost immediate removed by the writer stating "Taken out 'Gang Violence' Para, Staff requested removal." I am thinking that I would like to revert this article to the edit listed above, and give this article some more time to declare itself notable, time to dig into this subject a little bit more and research the gang violence problem this school has. That being said, I am changing my opinion on this article to a weak keep. Should research fail to pan out any useful claim to notability, there is plenty of time to revisit deletion later. Trusilver 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools. --Czj 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: article makes no particular claim of notability and contains no information other than what one would expect to find in a directory or prospectus. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory or prospectus. — Haeleth Talk 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also doubt the claims that a school with 1800 pupils is one of the largest schools in Qld. ViridaeTalk 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Too bad, because it is. But where did that come up in the artice. All we siad we were one the best schools in Queensland, not the biggest....or did I miss something? Tayuke 03:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "one of the largest schools in Queensland" ViridaeTalk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. Also, how come everytime a high school is nominated someone votes keep and says that all schools are notable? TJ Spyke 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I used to comment reguarly on AfDs (before uni took over) that used to be the norm. It is refreshing to see that it is no longer the case. ViridaeTalk 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:SCHOOLS3. Lankiveil 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, contains information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia, like the history of the school. Saying we can't find out the history of a school because that would also be included in a prospectus is just bullshit bovine excrement. Kappa 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calling arguments "bullshit" is both uncivil and not productive. JoshuaZ 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK I have revised my vote. Kappa 09:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All schools are notable. I think it's highly arrogant to say otherwise. -- Chisrule 01:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? ViridaeTalk 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Schools educate, mold our youth, create memories, experiences and should be considered something more. I'm Wiki newbie, but feel strongly about this, am I misunderstanding something?? -- Chisrule 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an argument for schools being notable as a whole not an argument for schools being notable in the particular (there's some term for this fallacy but I don't remember it off the top of my head). Note also that school deletions have generally been highly controversial. JoshuaZ 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly you might like to read WP:SCHOOLS3. Wikipedia doesnt work in blanket notability. ViridaeTalk 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia doesn't do blanket notability, except for professional athletes, villages, colleges, albums, hit singles... Kappa 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • But doesnt their staus imply notability in itself. They also have multiple non-trivial works published about them. Most schools do not - and most people would not have heard of most schools. ViridaeTalk 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • no not really actually most people have not heard of most villages and most schools have multiple non-trivial works about them Yuckfoo 02:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think you might find that more people have heard of a village than the school in it... ViridaeTalk 02:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You might also find that more people have heard of MacGregor State High School than a typical village. Kappa 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are you arguing that that means it passes the notability guidelines? ViridaeTalk 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • And some people (such as myself) wouldn't object to revisiting the rules for villages and professional athletes. Just because we have a bad precedent on one thing doesn't justify it on others. JoshuaZ 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • We all all know that public schools, especially high schools, receieve regular independent coverage in local media. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. Kappa 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, the get regular coverage, i.e. routine and and trivial coverage with minimal editorial oversight or anything else. Indeed, it is often difficult to tell when such coverage is even independent and even when it is its very regular nature makes it trivial. We don't have articles about every single murderer even if the local papers will cover each one in depth. JoshuaZ 18:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you think this is about whether the school has an article or not you are abusing the deletion system and wasting our time, something I am very bitter about. You may equate "routine" with "trivial" but there is not particular reason anyone else should; yes many trivial events are covered but so are important ones. It adds up to proof that the school is important in the community and that there is potential for separate article if enough research is done. A one-off murder is usually a news event, not a enduring institution. Kappa 03:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds of duplicated information ONLY. The notable aspects are already covered at Macgregor, Queensland. There's no need for duplication in two articles. Delete - the article is not notable enough to have its own article. The notable aspects, including the destruction of the school by the tornado, are covered at Macgregor, Queensland. However, I'm very tempted to ask for a keep. Just because the subject requests deletion should not mean that it should be deleted. Wikipedia needs to make a strong case against this sort of thing happening.Keep - as per Capitalistroadster, the school appears to have students that excel in multiple fields in outside activities, and may present a borderline notability case to fulfil criteria 2, 3 or 4 of WP:SCHOOLS3. I have 2 provisos, get rid of any copyrighted information from the School's website (or cite it properly) (to keep our friend below happy), and slap a cleanup tag on the article to get it fixed up. JROBBO 07:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duplicated information is not a grounds for deletion. Kappa 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed wording to make it clearer - my deletion is for non-notability. JROBBO 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does the subject request deletion? ViridaeTalk 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See the talk page of the article at the bottom; an unsigned user has claimed the school doesn't want the article any more. JROBBO 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, though I dodnt think it has any bearing on this afd. ViridaeTalk 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia doesn't create or delete articles based on the wishes or expectations of the subject. Trusilver 18:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What if they own the information themselves, under copyright law? Then what is Wiki going to do? Tayuke 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You cannot own facts. You can own the writing in which they were written however. The copyvio would obviously be removed. ViridaeTalk 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I'm the owner of thsi writting, as i did create the actile in the first place, ight? So i say, remove the actile, as requested by MSHS Tayuke 05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • By submitting your contributions you agree to licence them under the GDFL. Read the line directly under the edit field. ViridaeTalk 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And to be honest, were your school not so eager to see this article go away, I probably would have not given a second thought to it's deletion. It's because of this unusual reaction that I want to give it some more time and research the subject. Trusilver 07:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Seriously, go ahead and try ad get this page up to the standards. But, as far as the subject is concerned, we will be watching this page carefully, and will be taking away stuff, that the subject believes to be…inapporite.. Tayuke 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If by inappropriate, you mean non-factual and unverified, this is of course acceptable. If by inappropriate you mean information that is factual and verified but makes the subject look bad, removal of such material is vandalism (see Wikipedia policy WP:VAND) and will be dealt with as such. Trusilver 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, thats the point. No one has a source from YouTube.com, or any other website about the "Gang Volince" Para. Sure, we do have fights, just like every single other high school in the world, (serioulsy, name one school who hasn't had a fight in the last month, and I'll take that back). But were not as bad as other school in the area, such as Runcorn State High School. If I made an actile on them, it would all be..bad Tayuke 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per request of the staff of MSHS. I would myself, being a student of MSHS, would love to see thsi page kept up. But, the owners of the information, MSHS, or if you want to acll them, the subject, don't seem to think it is Noteable enough to be in wiki, although MSHS is one of the best high Schools in Queensland. i could a list of acivments that MSHS have done, over the last few years, and many schools would not be able to start making a list bigger than ours.....ut still, the subject here doensn't want anything to do with Wiki, at thsi current time. Tayuke 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • that actually is not a reason in our policies for erasing articles Yuckfoo 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but why do you guys then think we should keep it open. I am not going to be making anymore additions ton the MSHS page, because of the request. And I serioulsy don't think anyone could find some information on us, via. Google, Yahoo ect. Tayuke 03:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tayuke, you can't "own" facts as you claim that the school does, and wants to have the information deleted. Sure, we can't just copy the information from the school's website, but that hasn't been done here. All the article is is just a factual information article on a school. The school has no rights over the information at all, and where the information is copyrighted, it would be easily covered by a fair use or fair dealing provision under Copyright law - it is for research purposes. JROBBO 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too bad. MSHS seems to belive that they do own the information, that has been given on thsi Wiki page. I could even get copyright laws, here in australia, proving that MSHS does own these bits of inofrmation, and that they do have rights. I should know, I spent a whole term learning about copyright, and thsi legal stuff, last year. Tayuke 02:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "too bad"... it doesn't matter what your school told you about copyright, but you need to realise that we will remove copyright violations, but we will not delete articles just because you ask. You should know something hopefully about fair dealing provisions under Copyright law, which exist in Australia and are even broader under US Law as far as I know. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there are clearly allowed exceptions for fair dealing where a small amount of the work is used and cited properly for the purposes of research or study law as well (see s. 40 of the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia). While your school may "own" the work, unless there is wholesale copying of the text (which I don't think there is), I doubt this would ever constitute a copyright violation, either under Australian or US Law, which is more applicable. And despite the school's objections, there's still nothing to stop us putting up things like "Macgregor State High School is a high school in the suburb of Macgregor, Queensland." That's a fact- it's not owned by anyone. Wikipedia does not delete articles because someone asks for them to be deleted. If you want to edit here you have to follow the policy, of which that is a part. JROBBO 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MSHS do not own the information. They own the content of their own website, but much of it would itself be derivative. As for lists of achievements and so forth - they need to be verifiable in order to be included in an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, let’s say MSHS have realized that I have broken copyright. What if I got a letter, signe by the principal herself, telling you all, that I did the wrong thing, and although I was intending to do the right thing, by making a page for MSHS on the school itself, and its awards, its achievements, and that this whole page should be removed. Yes, there are few things that that can’t be copyrighted, but I sure we can take away the History of the school, which at the moment is th only major part of the Page. Tayuke 00:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge with Macgregor, Queensland. A Google News Archive shows a number of references for this school [53] so worthy of retention for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you know..we do make it into the Web :D. Still, my opion hasnt changed Tayuke 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It has many news sources that mention it but I see no evidence of non-triviality in the news sources. However, some students have acheived high level honors [54] if evidence can be shown of more non-trivial sources or other claims of notability (such as substantion of the claim that it is one of the best schools in queenland) I would be willing to change my opinion. JoshuaZ 04:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, though I'm willing to revisit if a verifiable claim of notability can be made. Also recommend that "keep all schools!" entries without comment on this particular school be discounted as an attempt at "voting" instead of contributing to the discussion of this particular case. Certainly an entry which just said "Delete all schools!" would be discounted at once! Seraphimblade 04:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. Appears to fail WP:SCHOOLS3 notability standards. A few students seem to have done quite well, per JoshuaZ, but aside from the hurricane and a murder case (where it's mentioned in passing in both cases), I don't find any sources that would allow for further expansion. Perhaps someone in Australia could point to something in print? Shimeru 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, you mean the awards we have won as a school, that havn't been published on the web? Just wondering, still not adding Tayuke 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This once again brings up the old all schools are notable: fact or fiction? debate which I find to be quite pointless. There is no official WP:SCHOOL and it would just be easier if we just kept all school articles. Also, this has to be one of the biggest schools in the country, it has to be notable. Atlantis Hawk 09:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is easier is not necessarily what is right or what is in line with consensus. Yes, it is large - but there is no reference for the pupil numbers and I doubt that it would be one of the biggest in the country. I'm sure you will find schools in melbourne or sydney or even brisbane itself that will fill that criteria. ViridaeTalk 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It only brings it up because you do so. WP:SCHOOL is there, and applying its criteria focuses the debate upon sources instead of upon the old "stuck record" arguments. Please stop using the "stuck record" arguments and instead focus on finding, citing, reading, and evaluating sources, by applying WP:SCHOOL. Uncle G 11:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found a ref for the pupil numbers, however the number the article stated was 200 off. The official enrollment number is 1617 - so it was off by 200 or so (previously said approximately 1800) or more than 10%. ViridaeTalk 10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, no notability, even by the extremely generous and controversial WP:SCHOOL criteria, no reliable secondary sources, no non-trivial press coverage in the article or raised so far in the AfD, some concerns about WP:V, looks like just more schoolcruft. Wikipedia is not an directory or indiscriminate list. However, I'm generally in favor of merging school articles if an appropriate place for the merge (school district article or city/region article) can be found. Xtifr tälk 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable school. Catchpole 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whats so "Unremarkable" about it? You havn't even got a full acrtice in front of you. Tayuke 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of schools and school programs-related deletions. --Czj 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster, meets WP:SCHOOLS with multiple news articles. Yamaguchi先生 03:40, 22 November 2006
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Should be cleaned up though. Makgraf 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With some work, this could be a very good article. The school is notable (believe it or not, 1600-1800 is very large for a year 8-12 school population in Australia!) Concerns the school may have about content which is what I would call non-encyclopaedic in nature is easy to maintain by simply insisting that every reference made has a source. EDIT: Have found two awards the school has won in the last two years, in art and science (the latter a BHP Billiton award) Orderinchaos78 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, all you forinegers. Gah, why does every single Euopean and American I meet online, seem to think that Australia is one of the "Small Nations". Tayuke 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for all the above keep reasons; the article is better than the one on my old high school; improvemenets always needed Hmains 01:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that information is kept relevant to an encyclopedia...and that the editors learn to spell before making additions (it's not like WP's seriously running out of space) --Danlibbo 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the nominator now wants to keep the article - surely you read the rest of the page apart from the first paragraph? JROBBO 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the argument that schools are inherently unnotable and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at WP:SCHOOLS state that MOST schools are notable in some ways and are "frequently important to their communities"- whether an individual school should have its own article is another matter, but your reason really isn't one for deletion. This is a policy argument that doesn't have a place in this AfD and belongs in the talk page on WP:SCHOOLS or a similar policy proposal. JROBBO 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yea, well as you may recall from the lengthy debate about schools way back when, there are plenty of us who simply disagree in toto with the School "policy," which I take to be a proposal anyway. We can disagree, but citing faux-statute like this will not change my mind and editors like myself who generally favor deletion have advanced every argument under the sun in explication, so consult the archives if you need further elucidation. I might note that very few school AfDs ended in keep; they ended in no consensus b/c the divisions were so deep. Eusebeus 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete all school articles. Clean up tho' Albatross2147 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have some justification or logic for this harsh dichotomy? JoshuaZ 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 1600 students is a lot, the article already have some interesting information, let it grow. bbx 08:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have video evidence of students engaging in fights, however I will not post these videos up without permission of those involved, this will provide hard evidence of the "Gang Violence" Paragraph. You can also contact Garden City Management on what some students at Macgregor State High School have done. Also there has been posts of youtube.com which showed evidence of students punching and kicking other students in the "Alley Way". The principal of Macgregor State high School found out about this and ordered students that posted up the videos remove them or face suspension. Contact the principal herself for confirmation of my accusation, there are plenty of people which would back what I have accused. There was a whole assembly over the issue of youtube.com and myspace.com pictures/videos being posted up. IiThaitanium 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC) — IiThaitanium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If some reliable source has published comments about the gang matter than that matters. Otherwise, it isn't relevant. JoshuaZ 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have found a link which can be seen here[55]. This should be a reliable source. IiThaitanium 15:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. You may wish to look at what is considered a reliable source, especially the section regarding self-publication. Youtube would be considered to be self-publication. Seraphimblade 18:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as neoligism and per WP:NOR as the article only cites a series of books by a single pair of authors. —Doug Bell talk 08:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless eating[edit]

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

This concept of mindless eating has struck a chord with an international public.

In the past 6 weeks, both the New York Times and USA Today have mentioned in in major feature articles. In the past month, 20/20, Good Morning America have featured it. On Sunday 11/19, CBS Weekend will have a feature by Emmy Award-winning Teichner and CBS News with Katie Couric will have a feature on it Monday 11/20.

It has also been the subject of a recent book, "Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think," which was #11 on the NYTimes Bestseller list last week. This is also of international resonance: The book has been licensed for publication in Japan, Brazil, Russia, in Hebrew, Danish, and Korean.

Academic references to the topic have been provided in the updated entry. In addition, Mindless Eating is mentioned throughout the two following articles:

"Seduced By Snacks? No, Not You" by Kim Severson New York Times, 10-11-06, pp. D1+. "Just Put Your Mind to It" by Nanci Hellmich USA Today, 10-11-06, p. 5D.

The one in the NYTimes was among the five most emailed articles for the week in which it was published.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jychao (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete as neologism. Redirect options are also available. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Does appear to have attracted some attention, but no indication that that will translate into lasting notability. Additionally, the article as it stands treads close to being an ad. (I do note that the book itself appears noteworthy, but this article is not about the book, but rather the book's underlying concept.) Shimeru 21:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain. Many of the changes have been made that were suggested earlier. One of the misunderstood take-aways of this concept is that it connotes an out-of-control, hopeless relationship with food. What needs to be underscored, and I think this has been done is that there is a silver lining here, that mindless eating can also be used to eat better.

If it would be advised to directly link this concept to the book, that would clarify the concept in similar manner. Jychao 01:18, 27 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 Yomanganitalk 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish people[edit]

The "Northern Irish" are not an ethnic group, in that Northern Ireland is populated (in addition to a small number of recent immigrants) with native Irish, the Scots Irish (a/k/a Ulster-Scots)and the Anglo-Irish, all three of whom already have articles. The assertion that the "Northen Irish" are a single "ethnic" group is merely an attempt to advance the political ideology of unionism. Windyjarhead 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and (no) context of article. Cbrown1023 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking, qualifies under A3 as a speedy deletion candidate. However, since we're here, redirect at closing bod's discretion to Scots Irish, Ulster-Scots or Anglo-Irish as suggested in nomination. Personally I think the creator of the article was trying to help rather than pushing a POV. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think redirecting to a single group would probably be a bad idea: it might be mistaken for pushing a POV by suggesting that one of these groups is the "true" Northern Irish people. However, if there isn't one already, this might be quite usefully converted into a disambiguation page that merely linked to the existing articles on each of the major groups within the population of Northern Ireland; if there's already such a page, then this should be redirected there. — Haeleth Talk 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an appropriate title for the proposed content. Zarbat 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly article, not least for proclaiming the existence of such a people as indigenous!!!! The author of that sentence has no idea what the word means. (Yes, I'm Scots-Irish; I can still spot a POV violation when I see one, and I agree with Windyjarhead that this is surely one!) --Orange Mike 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pennfield Senior High School[edit]

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

Pennfield Senior High School

Lack of notability, does not withstand precedent to delete similar articles that fail to note substantial relevance. Fails to pass either WP:SCHOOLS or WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 22:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no-notable; doesn't even have more than a thousand students... my school even has more than that.... Cbrown1023 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to provide information beyond that one would expect in a directory or prospectus (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or prospectus). Also fails WP:V due to absence of secondary sources. — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this should be important to community and has notable alumni too Yuckfoo 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only claim to notability is a single barely notable alumnus. JoshuaZ 04:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Haeleth, or Merge to an appropriate article (local school district or city/region article). Xtifr tälk 12:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only per my belief that all secondary educational institutions and above are notable, but also for the upcoming state-of-the-art $28 million dollar high school project due to be completed next year and the famous alumni. Yamaguchi先生 03:38, 22 November 2006
Personal beliefs are not a valid criteria, and saying that something will be notable in the future because of something "upcoming" violates WP:CRYSTAL. wikipediatrix 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL, the project is notable and verifiable even prior to completion. Yamaguchi先生 03:47, 22 November 2006
  • Keep I see no reason this should be deleted.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's swell, but our keep-or-delete choice is supposed to cite what part of policy/guidelines support our choice. wikipediatrix 03:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care all that much whether this particular article stays or not, but the default option on AFD is to keep -- it is only really necessary to cite what part of policy/guidelines support the deletion of an article. Of course, people voting keep without giving any good reasons aren't very persuasive, and would likely be given somewhat less credence by the closing admin. older ≠ wiser 05:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, large enough school, notable to the local community. bbx 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Large enough for what? Largeness is not a notability criterion. If it's notable only to the local community, then per WP:LOCAL, it should be merged to an article about the local community. And in any case, merely asserting that it's "notable to the local community" does not make it true. To establish notability (local or otherwise), you need to provide evidence that reliable sources have taken note of it. Xtifr tälk 13:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for all the above reasons Hmains 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's fairly easy to turn a school article into... an article. If we find the history, for instance, this should make this article more than a directory. WhisperToMe 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media coverage, notable alumnus and state championships won by the school are indicative of meeting the WP:SCHOOL standards. Alansohn 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the quiet guy Albatross2147 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RKO Industries[edit]

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

It appears this page is an advertising/spam page for RKO industries--Alex 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or possible speedy G11. Advertising tone, barely if at all notable company. Seraphimblade 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand there is a 5 day period within which to discuss the consideration of deletion. I will make every effort to post my argument for inclusion later today. If not today, I will certainly post by tomorrow a.m. user:Recycledagplastic 13:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am working on Wikipedia's waste & recycling sections. If you can prove notability and make the article read not as a publicity piece for the company I would support you. In its present format I agree with Seraphimblade as a delete--Alex 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cbrown1023 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has multiple independent nontrivial references which demonstrate the company's notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very busy day. Still intend on posting argument. user:Recycledagplastic 21 November 2006
  • You have the nominated five days to make arguements, but I suggest that the time would be better spent constructively improving the article to a non-advertising tone so that people will support the articles inclusion.--Alex 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was boldly redirected to Society for News Design. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of Newspaper Design[edit]

The Society of Newspaper Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's already an article for this organization using its proper name, the Society for News Design. I suggest we delete and redirect. Stick Fig 23:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quickly (not Speedy) Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 20:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Génesis[edit]

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

Non-notable online university stub. Created a year ago but never grew past two unsourced sentences. wikipediatrix 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable and small. Cbrown1023 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nihiltres 03:50, 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 as uncertain future event. Can be recreated if a game is released, but there is no evidence, even the interview with the company, that a game by the same name or with the same game play will even be released. —Doug Bell talk 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Motor Sports[edit]

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

This page is entirely composed of false/unverifiable information about a game that is not known to be planned, and was only shown at E3 2006 - one time. The name Wii Motor Sports was stated to only be temporary. The only game composing Wii Motor Sports is said to be this airplane game - but the airplane demo is nowhere to be seen. An old quote in the article taks about how it could be included in Wii Sports, but this has been contradicted since the released product contains no such ariplane demo. Scepia 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a crazy idea: instead of deleting it, edit it. In a addition, put one of them "upcoming events" templates at the top.--The4sword 16:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Please give justification for this. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't have an article on August 12, 2016. Scepia 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak merge with Wii Sports. If we wait a while, we can get a little more information about it. if not, we can merge it with Wii Sports because it also part of the series...SuperSonic 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This game, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. It is certainly not a part of Wii Sports - there is tennis, bowling, golf, etc., but the game is released and there is no airplane game in it. Scepia 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be deleted then? Scepia 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. It seems to have some verifiable information that we can use to make a good "upcoming" article. Andre (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Scepia 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Weak Merge per above. JQF 21:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. 1ne 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - come back when the games exist. Pete Fenelon 01:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Yarnalgo 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. Denaar 13:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it for now, remake it when there's some non-speculative info from a reputable source. RampageouS 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I'd like to point out that the consensus was a total load of shit. The game is valid, it just needed to be fact checked. --Nintenfreak 19:28, 29 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 Delete ~ trialsanderrors 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Julia Booksellers[edit]

R. J. Julia Booksellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fails notability. The only claim to fame seems to be a list of minor celebrities who are calimed to have visited the store - which is extremely difficult to verify. Qarnos 20:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia precedent: "Small companies such as Sole proprietorships and closely held corporations are not generally notable (unless, of course, they have received significant press coverage)." Movementarian (Talk) 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even a verifiable list of minor celebrities that visited the store would not be notable—even a long list of major celebrities, unless the visits themselves were somehow notable, would not push it above the notability bar. —Doug Bell talk 08:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been significantly expanded since being listed and has borderline notability due to references in popular print and appearances in film. Any decision to delete would need to be reevaluated based on the current article. —Doug Bell talk 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Guidance[edit]

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

Nominated by User:Dddstone but not carried through. Listing now. This article appears to skirt speedy deletion criteria A1, A3 and A7 without hitting any of them. Your opinion is welcome. No opinion is being expressed by me.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete unfortunately unverified, lacks of information. Rather delete then keep. Tulkolahten 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Time article from 1983: [56]. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the gravity boots article. It appears that this company enjoyed some brief renown in the early 1980s, but quickly disappeared from the map. The information about this brand and it's surge in sales from the movie should be added to the existing gravity boots article. Since I cannot find any specified independent articles about Gravity Guidance, I think it will work best to just merge this into the main article—since the company's now defunct, this article could really never be significantly expanded. Dallben 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — into the Gravity Boots article per Dallben, unless a large amount of information can be found on the company in the next couple of days. Wizardman 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded and sourced the article. There is not that much more to write about it, but I think the story about the medical misdiagnosis leading to the demise of the company makes it sufficiently notable. ~ trialsanderrors 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newscloud[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, doesn't seem notable. I'm curious what others think on this. --Czj 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The website is "categorized as part of the Web 2.0 phenomena for the way in which they harness participatory communities on the Internet", is it? Skating awfully close to WP:BOLLOCKS. --Charlene 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --timecop 05:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, worthless. probably blog-related. - Femmina 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Wooldridge[edit]

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

A sliver of asserted notability keeps this linkless and unsourced article from being a speedy delete candidate. Your opinion is sought. I think delete is the right thing to do. You? ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura VanRyn[edit]

Article is an obituary (variant of vanity page) that does not assert encyclopedic notability. Article is also only referenced via a blog page. Bumm13 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very sad case, but doesn't really belong in this encylopedia. Not notable besides to the ones close to the subject and even her tragic death doesn't show notability. This is a difficult one. --Oakshade 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Weak Delete realizing she was involved in that identity mix-up that made headlines last year. Still, it's hard to see how that warrants an entire article as the story was really about the identity mix-up and not the subject. --Oakshade 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The identity mixup between the severely injured girl and the dead one was in the news for a few days, but wasn't a major or lasting story. Fan-1967 21:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a tragic case, but WP is not a memorial --Mnemeson 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nishkid64 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barstow School[edit]

The Barstow School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) New article which displays no information showing why this school is notable or deserves an article. It seems no different than any other small private school in a suburban area. Wikophile 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete64.216.141.187 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To deal with UTC concerns, the school is notable and has several important alumni. These include Bess Truman and Jean Harlow. The School has been around for over 100 years and would be notable to those in the area. In addition, it's most prominent rival, The Pembroke Hill School, has its own page and nobody seems to not want to delete that article. I'll update the page to assuage your concerns...
  • Keep This seems to be another in a pattern of school deletionism aimed at new school articles. The age and distinguished alumni more than justify retention. That this article was never prod'ed and went straight to AfD is a major cause for concern. Alansohn 01:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC) The school has served the community for over 120 years, which exceeds the "50-year test" dictated by criterion 2 of WP:SCHOOL. That the schools alumni include Bess Truman and Jean Harlow, qualifies under criterion 6 "notable alumni or staff (e.g. would qualify for an article under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC)". As such the article meets and exceeds the retention criteria specified by WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 02:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why is this a cause for concern? If it had been prod'd, the prod would've been removed almost immediately. -- Kicking222 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is this another "the ends justify the means" excuse? Prod'ding the article would have allowed editors to identify the issue before an AfD was created. The failure to follow process and allow for the improvement of an article created by a brand new user is an egregious show of bad faith. Deletionists demand that we follow their own distorted set of rules but refuse to follow the ones we all agree on. Alansohn 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse me, but that's a terribly biased, poorly-based, and personally offensive statement. I was simply pointing out that every school article which gets a prod tag has that tag quickly removed, which is true. Since you justified why you would've preferred the article was prod'd, I completely agree with your statement- it would allow for improvement before a possible AfD. However, your blanket statement after this rationale is rather awful. -- Kicking222 02:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was policy followed, or not? Are you justifying this or excusing it? It's a new article, teh first created from a new user and you don't see an issue with that? Alansohn 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? I just agreed with you. I'm not sure what you're fighting about. -- Kicking222 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Policy was followed. Prod before AfD is not policy. Prod is to be used when editors feel deletion would be non-controversial. Are you seriously suggesting that a high school article would be a non-controversial deletion, Alansohn? And once again, you need to lay off the personal attacks, please. Shimeru 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apropos of nothing, I'd like to point out that decaf coffee really might be best for some. wikipediatrix 04:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. wikipediatrix 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is there any particular reason to delete that you'd like to share with us? Alansohn 04:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you're being so charming, I'll return the charm: What part of "as above" didn't you understand? wikipediatrix 04:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • While the nominator might be excused based on the article's content at the point the AfD was created, the article as it stands now makes several specific claims of notability. As your vote seems to be even more out of consensus than usual, I thought it might be useful to understand what goes on in the mind of an extreme deletionist, for the benefit of all of us. Are any schools notable? Alansohn 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hey Alan, for just one school AfD, can you try to not be a dick? -- Kicking222 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey Kicking, why is it so unreasonable to request an explanation for a delete when I constantly see the same requests for equally unjustified keep votes. I am willing to tone down a bit here, as long as we have a deal that I have carte blanche to defend articles to the fullest extent possible on all future AfDs. Alansohn 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is notable and passes the 50 year test plus notable alumni too Yuckfoo 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fully meets some or most of every damned proposed criteria we've ever had for school inclusion at wikipedia. The education of Jean Harlow and Bess Truman is important. They are role models for lots of folks. I also agree that AfD is being misused. It should be the last step in the wikipedia improvement process, preferably after engaging the article submitter, not the first step. --JJay 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per the 2 notable alumni and the 122 year age of the school. Edison 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Edison. JoshuaZ 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per notable alumni (though not per the age criterion, which is ridiculous). Shimeru 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Passes WP:SCHOOLS and arguably passesWP:SCHOOLS3. I will give a shrugging 'keep' vote based mostly on it's notable alumni. Trusilver 07:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm strongly opposed to the incessant creation of useless stubs on obscure, non-notable schools (schoolcruft), but this one is not a stub, and seems reasonably notable. I strongly dislike the "50 year rule" as far too generous (especially in areas where many schools have been around for 300+ years), but this is 120 years old, in a region that has only been settled by school-building peoples for a couple of hundred years, and seems to have some notable alumni. Xtifr tälk 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is nothing notable about this school. It is a small, suburban private school mostly unknown in Kansas City. The entire purpose of this article (much of which was lifted directly from The Pembroke Hill School) seems to be to make this tiny school seem "big." Just because Jean Harlow or Bess Truman or a purported politician who never won a primary election went there does not justify an entire article about it. 65.28.2.218 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (strong keep) per the commenters above, this meets WP:SCHOOLS et cetera. Yamaguchi先生 03:41, 22 November 2006
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please expand your delete comment using English and with reference to the specific qualities of The Barstow School. --JJay 19:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only notability is via the alumni, so the only place it should be mentioned on Wikipedia is in their articles. Pete Fenelon 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'll accept the age is somewhat notable, but the claim based on alumnae seems to weak at this point since their notability is completely unconnected with the school itself. Eluchil404 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per JJay. bbx 08:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn school since schools are inherently unnotable. Eusebeus 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep may pass WP:SCHOOLS but only just, overall my impression is the school doesn't deserve it's own article. It does pass WP:SCHOOLS3 but if I explained a mildly complicated concept to a friend on my balcony over a beer one day, this educational act would allow my balcony to pass WP:SCHOOLS3. If it had more than 650 students it would help it's cause drastically. Also let's not get bent out of shape about the prodding, we all know that prods on schools and garage bands get removed instantly. The nominator was just saving time.•Elomis• 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Diablo Unified School District. This appears to be a series of nominations (Ygnacio Valley Elementary School, Valley View Middle School, El Dorado Middle School) so I've redirected them all for the sake of consistency and navigational purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El Dorado Middle School[edit]

El Dorado Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Haeleth. Alternatively, will not object to no deletion and turning this page into a redirect to the school district. JoshuaZ 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District. Yet more schoolcruft, fails all plausible notability criteria, but I think a redirect is perfectly reasonable. (Might also encourage people to start expanding some of the district articles, which badly need it, rather than simply, blindly, creating more and more pointless stubs.) Xtifr tälk 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District is most reasonable to do. Yamaguchi先生 03:45, 22 November 2006
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - YAschoolcruftarticle. Pete Fenelon 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calling something "schoolcruft" isn't any more of a valid argument than claiming all schools are notable. JoshuaZ 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school which fails even the extraordinarily lax standards set out at WP:SCHOOLS. Eusebeus 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per Yamaguchi.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Diablo Unified School District. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ygnacio Valley Elementary School[edit]

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

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a directory listing. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District We can easily avoid this conflict by simply making the article a redirect. It's an elementary school, and there's no stated notability, so why not just point it at the school district? -- Kicking222 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Kicking222. wikipediatrix 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kicking and nom. Should not bother deleting the history if we make a redirect because it will make the history harder to access later if an article is created. JoshuaZ 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect as above. fails both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 07:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kicking. (Plus, a redirect might help encourage people to expand the school district article, which needs it, rather than blindly creating more useless, non-notable schoolcruft stubs.) Xtifr tälk 12:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District. Sources are sufficient for the content presented, but this still should be given redirection as proposed by commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 November 2006
  • Merge/Redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District. No notability per WP:SCHOOL and no evidence of articles in Google News Archive search and elsewhere online. Merge/Redirect keeps the article history and should be the default option for non-notable schools. Alansohn 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. WMMartin 16:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete YAschoolcruftarticle Pete Fenelon 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calling something "schoolcruft" isn't any more of a valid argument than claiming all schools are notable. JoshuaZ 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Completely disagree. There is an argument, well established, that schools are inherently unnotable and there are plenty of editors who reject out of hand the so-called compromise represented by WP:SCHOOLS which does an end-run around issues of notability. Asking those of us who disagree with the ridiculous standards laid out at WP:SCHOOLS to justify our rationale within the terms it sets out (which is how I read your comment) is therefore not germane. A shorthand for the well-established arguments for why schools are unnotable is thus to say schoolcruft, even if it is perhaps dismissive. But since the body of AfD debates on schools has been the subject of hundreds of thousands of words back and forth, by this point I think informed editors are justified in implicitly referencing those arguments with whatever short form they wish, to wit: Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 12:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Yamaguchi.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Diablo Unified School District. This appears to be a series of nominations (Ygnacio Valley Elementary School, Valley View Middle School, El Dorado Middle School) so I've redirected them all for the sake of consistency and navigational purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View Middle School (Pleasant Hill, California)[edit]

Valley View Middle School (Pleasant Hill, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District as per my rationale in the above AfD (though this is a middle school, but the average middle school is no more notable than the average elementary school). -- Kicking222 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect per Kicking222. wikipediatrix 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kickign but don't object to a redirect being made. If a redirect is made the history should not be deleted since it will make it easier to make a new article if the school ever becomes notable. JoshuaZ 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make "Valley View Middle School" a redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District per above-the parenthetical expression makes this an extremely unlikely search to be typed in by a user. Seraphimblade 07:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoshuaZ, echoing the same sentiment. Fails both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 07:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Kicking. (Plus, a redirect might help encourage people to expand the school district article, which needs it, rather than blindly creating more useless, non-notable schoolcruft stubs.) Xtifr tälk 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District as with similar stub articles in this district. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 November 2006
  • Delete per nom. WMMartin 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete YAschoolcruftarticle Pete Fenelon 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calling something "schoolcruft" isn't any more of a valid argument than claiming all schools are notable. JoshuaZ 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete nn school. See my comments at this AfD for rationale. Eusebeus 12:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect seems to make sense here.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Diablo Unified School District. This appears to be a series of nominations (Ygnacio Valley Elementary School, Valley View Middle School, El Dorado Middle School, Wren Avenue Elementary School) so I've redirected them all for the sake of consistency and navigational purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wren Avenue Elementary School[edit]

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

No claim of noteworthiness, no independent reliable sources, and no non-directory content. Fails WP:SCHOOLS3. Prod disputed, without addressing concerns. Shimeru 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails to provide non-directory/prospectus information: this is not a directory or a prospectus, it is an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google and other searches turn up no indepdent sources that have any non-directory information. I won't object to a redirect in principle. JoshuaZ 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails both WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. Trusilver 07:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District. Yet more schoolcruft, fails all plausible notability criteria, but I think a redirect is perfectly reasonable. (Might also encourage people to start expanding some of the district articles, which badly need it, rather than simply, blindly, creating more and more pointless stubs.) Xtifr tälk 12:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mount Diablo Unified School District per Xtifr, it is a reasonable solution. Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 22 November 2006
  • Delete. Cruft like this makes me want to gouge my own eyes out. WMMartin 16:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete YAschoolcruftarticle Pete Fenelon 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Calling something "schoolcruft" isn't any more of a valid argument than claiming all schools are notable. JoshuaZ 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete nn school. See my comments at this AfD for rationale. Eusebeus 12:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems to make sense here.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that an actor whose biggest role is "...playing one of the 4 thugs..." is probably not very notable is a strong one. It is definitely true that inclusion in IMDB does not by itself warrant an article, and indeed WP:BIO sets quite a higher standard than that for actors. And no other Keep argument is advanced. And the count is 4-2 Delete, if you count Patstuart as being for deletion. Herostratus 17:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel David[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 21:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WHilst imdb lists quite a few appearances, if playing one of the 4 thugs who killed the Crow is the best known of his roles, this guy can't be at all notable. Ohconfucius 09:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, entry in IMDB satisfies notability. List of appearances is not short. Tulkolahten 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - just about notable enough to warrant retention. Pete Fenelon 01:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per WP:BIO, entry in IMDB does not necessarily satisfy notability. See WP:PORNBIO. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohconfucius. —Doug Bell talk 07:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R Kingston[edit]

Andrew R Kingston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability not established. Created by user who also added various items to lists referring to short stories by the subject of this article Stumps 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep references now cited. Mangecourt 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a few links to poems on a vanity publisher are not "sources". Google finds a lawyer named Andrew Kingston before it finds this guy, completely non-notable. Seraphimblade 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, because google are the authority on things like this (note the sarcasm)
  • Has anyone tried to contact this Andrew Kingston to see if he can verify anything? Mangecourt
  • Delete per Seraphimblade. shotwell 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - vanity poets are insufferable enough in real life, do we really need them here? Pete Fenelon 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US gang graffiti in Iraq[edit]

US gang graffiti in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

not encyclopaedic, belongs in wikinews Xorkl000 21:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Several WP:RS have commented on the phenomena over the span of two years; I suspect if we go back further to the 1991 Gulf War we'll find similar commentary (indeed, I knew vets who commented on it at the time). csloat 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Pravda writes about it, it must be The Truth. Actually multiple sources confer notability. ~ trialsanderrors 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to new stub Gang members in the United States military with this current content as a section. I think the important aspect of this phenomenon are that they are gang members serving in the US military - the graffiti is just a sign that they are there. (Actually, I would have liked to recommend a merge to an article on US gangs, but I can't find one, and Gang is in bad shape, and I don't want to recommend a merge there.) Bwithh 23:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek ran a story "Gangstas in the ranks" about gang membership in the US military in 1995 and mentions that it was a concern of the Dept. of Justice in 1994[60]. Probably goes back further especially with conscription periods. I've seen posts claiming that this was going on with the Black Hand in the US Civil War but with no backup. Bwithh 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope they do a storyline about this on The Shield or The Wire (TV series) <=P Bwithh 00:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Ramparts scandal in L.A. (upon which The Shield is based) was caused by the hiring of gang members as police officers. Keep, this is an important cultural phenomenon. Allon Fambrizzi 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
True, but that's LAPD not military Bwithh 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Gang members in the United States military per above. Zarbat 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - "move" means "keep" for the purpose of this discussion, since a page move is easily accomplished with the "move" tab at the top of the page. (Though such a move should not take place until after the AfD). I would endorse the move recommended here. csloat 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 12:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per csloat and Bwithh (I'm fine with the merging to the suggested title). --Oakshade 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article describes an interesting phenomenon reported by RS, moving the article can be discussed later in the article's talk page. As an alternative, you can start Gang members in the United States military and propose a merger. JRSP 19:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as no reliable outside sources have been provided to verify the claim to notablity. And the onus for that is certainly on the editors. ~ trialsanderrors 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetCricket[edit]

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

Non notable website about cricket. Claims in article very misleading Leg before Wiki 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont think you can claim this website is not a notible website about cricket gaming. It is the only active website which is updated regually about cricket games. Which claims are miss leading? Boulet 22:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand. The onus is not on me to prove that this article should be deleted. It is upon you to prove that it should be kept. Leg before Wiki 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The onus is surely on you to explain which claims are misleading? You are of course welcome to clean up the article and remove these claims. You claim it should be deleted as it is not a notible cricket website but it is a notible cricket gaming website wouldn't you agree? Many cricket games have their own articles and mention most of the playabilty and lastivity of these games come from community made patches. These patches exclusivly come from PlanetCricket and this has been mentioned in several articles.Boulet 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the onus is on me, why are you trying to justify the article's existence? You would better serve wikipedia by trying to cleanup articles that are in need of it. I know you as a person, I know that you're a sockpuppet of the creator, and I'm sure that many other mysterious users will appear on this page before long. You disgust me. Leg before Wiki 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The onus is on you to link to the notability criteria that you employed, and to explain how this web site fails to satisfy them. The onus is also on you to refrain from introducing ad hominem points into the discussion and to remain focussed upon the article. Uncle G 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove the misleading claims (fastest growning, popular etc) and keep it as the facts, then we should be fine. Mangecourt 23:04, 20 November, 2006 (UTC) — Mangecourt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. I'm sorry, but this seems more like a commercial than a encyclopedia article. --DixiePixie 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have attempted to clean up the article and I disagree with DixiePixie about it being a commercial as it contains information and cricket games patches which are vital to the playablity of the games (have you even played any?? Try EA's games and you will know what I mean). It also has information about a new community cricket game which perhaps does not warrent its only article as yet but at a later date could be split off from the PlanetCricket article. Boulet 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Boulet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Delete (if it wasn't obvious). Leg before Wiki 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. PlanetCricket is an important Cricket Gaming website and my idea is that after the article is cleaned up further, there will be no need for a deletion. Duffarama 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leg before Wiki hasn't explained how this web site fails the relevant notability criteria, and you haven't explained how it passes. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied by this web site. Uncle G 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is a lot of us are very busy, and don't have time to waste finding thse sources (this is probably the reason that there's so much cruft on wikipedia, as anime fans and the like tend to be either teenagers or unemployed so can easily keep their crap on). Anyway, according to WP:WEB... Doesn't meet sections 1, 2, 3. Leg before Wiki 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that there are good reasons which show its important mentioned on the actual article e.g [61] and the fact that the producer of EA's latest cricket game chose to do his only interview with the site. To be honest if Leg Before Wikie cant be bothered to research and find sources he shouldnt really be putting sites up for deletion. Boulet 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's quite obvious from reading the artitcle. And I know exactly who you are and what you've done, it's only the fact that I can't prove it that's stopping me mentioning it. Leg before Wiki 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I dont really think that it is a valid reason for article deletion then? This seems to be a personal vendetta of some sort against the person who you believe I am (whoever that maybe)!Boulet 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be the pre-eminent cricket gaming site. I also quite like the name "Leg before Wiki", although the user's actions are curious to say the least. Dave 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Many game fansites get given tickets to things, beta slots, and all that... in itself, it doesn't make a site notable. Nor does being a big site. I tried to find some magazine/newspaper items, but failed to find any. Given the number of links to this site, I don't want to totally dismiss the chance that there are some articles out there somewhere, hence being a weak delete. It'd be easy to change my mind with a few good references. Polenth 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Young (LARP)[edit]

Mike Young (LARP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion was overturned at DRV, now listing here to discuss the merits of the article. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Enjoy. ~ trialsanderrors 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This fellow seems non-notable. .V. 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Intro does need to be rewritten to establish notability better. LARP GoH at Origins. On the DRV discussion it was argued this was a minor award - maybe compared to other gaming awards, but within the LARPing community it's pretty huge as it's the only LARP award available that isn't publisher specific. Also designed award winning board game Hamlet (Polycon independant game design contest, which had a $1000 prize attached to it). His chief claim to fame though, popularizing Theatre-style live action role-playing, may be dificult to prove though as there isn't much of a LARP literature to cite (and what little there is he's the author of and he tends not to write about himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmusser (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 November 2006
  • Weak delete. As is, seems to narrowly miss passing WP:BIO; I could be convinced otherw/ise if some of the above-mentioned awards or influences could be cited. As an aside, "LARP" in the article title seems to be against the advice of WP:RPG and WP:TITLE; perhaps Mike Young (game designer) would be a better title? Percy Snoodle 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep thanks for providing the citations below; hope some of them can be added to the article. Percy Snoodle 10:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mr. Young is at least as prolific as Monte Cook and has done most of this work without the backing of large corporations. Rules to Live By Amazon ISBN: 0970835604 Rules to Live By Supernatural ISBN: 0970835612 The Book of LARP ISBN: 097083568X are just a few of the Products that Mr. Young has produced and published.

independent Reviews of Mr. Young's Works: Igor (Card Game) RPG.net Steve Jackson Games PYRAMID Magazine Gaming Report.com Hamlet (Board Game) Gaming Report.com You Need Drew's Truck (Board Game) Gaming Report.com Rules to Live By (LARP) Gaming Report.com GameGrene.com Rules To Live By: Supernatural (LARP) Gaming Report.com Book of LARP (LARP) RPG.net Gaming Report.com PRAWN (LARP) Gaming Report.com RPG.net Kuhfeldt

  • Keep. Theatre-Style LARP is a notable form of LARP with its own key entries. While the form is generally credited with having been invented by Walt Frietag, Mike Young has been one of the principal developers since 1989. He has presented material at very nearly every one of the Live Action Roleplaying Association's 2-3 annual conventions, and presented numerous talks. Theatre Style is not as popular a form in the U.S. as in Europe where it is state funded, however comparable European Designer Mike Pohjola has an entry at fi.wikipedia.org. While Mike did not invent the four hour format of Theatre Style LARP which is common at conventions such as Origins, Gencon, etc., his popularization of the form led to his being selected as one of two judges for LARPA's Small Gamewriting Competition for 2006. This is a growing field. I'd also argue a strong inequity here. Live Combat LARP is characterized by strong group identities, and nearly every small group, no matter how relatively unspectacular is accorded a Wikipedia Entry. Theatre Style LARP is heavily characterized by individual designers - Mike Young is as notable in the Theatre Style Field as IFGS in the Live Combat discipline, and significantly moreso than Knight Realms which is also accorded a listing. I would submit that none of the editors favoring deletion have shown a strong familiarity with Theatre Style, and that within that arguably significant community, Mike Young is considered to be a designer of considerable historical and contemporary significance. Gordon Olmstead-Dean 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO (widely recognized contribution in his field, author/publisher with multiple reviews). Clearly needs revision, however, and probably the above described rename. Joshua Kronengold 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the X/Y article dichotomy cited by the above user, Mike Young has received Origins Awards for his games and these games have received (as per WP:BIO) multiple, non-trivial reviews from rpg.net, gamingreport.com, and even Pyramid Magazine, an imprint of Steve Jackson Games. That said, a move to Mike Young (game designer) should happen, plus it needs a tone revision. Fethers 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons explained above. Renaming to Mike Young (game designer) would be apropriate. The Bearded One 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Hunter[edit]

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

non notable comics. 1260hit. Doond 22:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are definitely not a keep/delete criterion. Tulkolahten 12:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm puzzled about why you put mobile phones on your search. I got 14,600 hits when tying in "Dragon Hunter" manhwa. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, he used "Dragon Hunter" -software -Mobile Phones to avoid software, Mobile Phones, he should use "Dragon Hunter" -software -Mobile -Phones instead. But as I said above, this is irrelevant. Tulkolahten 13:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published by TokyoPop in the US, makes it almost automatically notable. I'd actually need grouns for why it's not notable to say otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was searching for information on this, and found the Wikipedia article to be helpful even if short... --Sonjaaa 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per FrozenPurpleCube . -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 12:10, 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 Redirect to Gender-neutral pronoun, no reason to delete the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sie and hir (second nomination)[edit]

Sie and hir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Still an unsourced article.
Not widely accepted as part of English language (or, if so, certainly not demonstrated to be so.)
Grossly POV.
Article lists several other possible alternatives, concretely proving that 'sie' and 'hir' aren't standard. Bladestorm (talk · contribs)

  • Delete as doesn't assert notability/no references or sources Mangecourt 23:14, 20th November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs sources, but a recognized form. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ATM, would need to be deleted as close to original research, but then again it may well be true and verifiable... therefore delete if not improved by deletion date to be verifiable. Dave 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Use of gender neutral pronouns in online communities". Which GNPs are in active use on the net? Is there a standard? Gender Neutral Pronouns. Uncle G 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3rd link doesn't work. To make a decision, I'd like to be comfortable that these words are in sufficiently common usage that they deserve a seperate article to the main list of all gender neutral words. I don't consider that demonstrated as of yet, but I'm quite sure that it is possible that it could be. Dave 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence for notability of these new words. Edison 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the absence of sources, seems like original research. Dsreyn 13:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect, helpful as search engine terms but perhaps not as a separate article. Uncle G's comments above bear further inquiry, however. -- nae'blis 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Do I actually vote myself? Or is it implied?) Something to note is that the tag declaring the article unverified has been there for months, and nobody's cared enough about the article to bother bringing it up to snuff. Even if it were reasonable to salvage it, there'd have to be someone willing to do the work. Bladestorm 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - these 'words' have been around for decades and despite the best efforts of those who would destroy the euphony of the English langauge have utterly and totally failed to achieve any currency. NN. Pete Fenelon 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. John254 03:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable cleanup and keep Of course it would be nonsense to say these are standard words, but as I read the article, it doesn't make that claim. I've seen them around enough that I would expect the claims the article does make, can be sourced, or at least that enough of them can be sourced to leave enough for an article. As for Pete Fenelon's remarks -- it's not relevant to this discussion whether the adoption of these words would be a good idea. I don't think the article advocates for the words; if it did, that should be cleaned up, but is not grounds to delete. --Trovatore 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If these 'words' have been around for decades, then the matter is noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 07:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect to something like gender neutral pronouns. --Neo 13:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ugen64 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire content of the article is: "Proposed gender-neutral pronouns; have gained no currency; used in Star Trek and by Wilson." If that's really important it can be added to Gender-neutral Pronouns. Tesseran 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Mall[edit]

Second nomination. The first debate was closed as no consensus although it now appears that all but two of the keep votes came from now blocked sockpuppets. In any case, the current practice is to delete articles on non-notable malls, per WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reads like a poor brochure. After several months of life, it is still a tiny stub. --DixiePixie 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable mall. Edison 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability --Mnemeson 00:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First every mall, then every shopping center, then every bodega. -THB 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vance[edit]

Non-notable computer artist. Article created by User:Jvance. Danny Lilithborne 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article makes no assertion of notability that rises to the standard of WP:BIO Darkspots 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. Tulkolahten 12:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteFails WP:BIO with prejudice as self-created. -THB 20:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frueh's Flowers[edit]

Frueh's Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A small company article posted by the son of the owners in violation of WP:COI (see the article's talk page). I originally tagged this with {{db-bio}}, but another user felt that the age of the company constituted an implicit assertion of notability. I find two Google hits to local Saginaw, MI flower directories[62]. No reliable sources substantiating any notability or providing any basis under which this would meet WP:CORP.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

db-bio removal reason from discussion: I am buildign this site as a page for my parent's family business, however due to limited time in class to work on it, and further research, I won't be able to put all of the information up right away. However, i do intend on makign this a fully functional page, so please bear with me. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamphunter1462 (talk • contribs)

I understand it is hard but wiki is not a webhosting. You must provide some reason for keep this article. Tulkolahten 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11 and WP:NOT a business directory. Leuko 00:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd hardly call the article blatant advertising. I'm the editor that felt the article didn't meet A7, and I don't think it warrants a G11 speedy deletion either. I'd just like for some sources to be turned up before the article is deleted; running an AfD increases those chances a hell of a lot more than slapping a db tag on it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is too few sources. Tulkolahten 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nothing happened. Tulkolahten 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 • 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Zeigler[edit]

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

Lacks notability, Simply list of 'Zach Facts' -- dhp1080 (u·t·c) 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it gets referenced. Mangecourt 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zack Facts have been removed; now completely factual. miketinte 23:00, 20 November 2006 (EST)
Still fails WP:NOTE with around 600 google hits. -- dhp1080 (u·t·c) 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not relevant. Article is not less notable if hits are less then some number. There are articles with a few hits only, but very notable. Tulkolahten 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, but I think I was using it as more of an illustration. Not a very good one at that. -- dhp1080 (u·t·c) 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 10:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. He writes for wwe.com. Check the site, how is that not valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.82.167 (talk • contribs)

Simple. He's just not notable. He might write for the site, but this article would doubtfully be of much worth to other areas of the encyclopedia. -- dhp1080 (u·t·c) 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep it. i found this very helpful— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.208.148.254 (talk • contribs)

I really believe 63.208.148.254 and 66.26.82.167 are sockpuppets voters. Tulkolahten 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 03:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Health Sciences Antigua[edit]

University of Health Sciences Antigua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an unaccredited school which has been described as a diploma mill. It was started as a rather more flattering article by User:DrGladwin, a student there. Apparently it has been vandalised by students numerous times, and Dr Gladwin has asked for help in bringing it to AfD. The more cynical among you may feel that this has more to do with the cited facts regarding its academic status than with the actual vandalism. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, in the spirit of WP:AGF, here it is. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Well, my reason for having this article deleted is very well put by Guy. There is more to arguments than just proving facts by copying and pasting links from other websites. That only works in some cases, specifically not in this one. This article has been the center of edit wars and bitterness, which will never end. Personally, I feel working on this article is a waste of time for everyone. There are other important articles where we can contribute our time. The sprotect message on the article header doesn't look pretty either. It was all my fault to start this article; I didn't know it would lead to this. So please, I humbly request it to be deleted. Thanks. DrGladwin 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit wars or vandalism are never a reason to delete an article. George Bush would have gone a long time ago if that was the case. ViridaeTalk 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one is iffy. That is has been blacklisted by several states and people have been prosecuted trying to use the their degrees makes it worthy of inclusion I think. Google turned up 12500 results, most of them refering to people who held a degree from there - and it does appear to be a diploma mill - lots of people turning up with multiple degrees including one of these. ViridaeTalk 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Viridae, you make a good point, but the thing is, this school is no longer a diplima mill, it was once in the late 80s and early 90s. Most of the websites that claim to prove it a diploma mill are "correct," but technically, they are outdated. People are treating those websites as reliable sources, which apparently, is absurd. This is 2006 and I'm a student here, and things have changed a lot. My point is, this article is has nothing meaningful to contribute. If you still want to look at it the way it was in the 80s and 90s, go ahead, keep the article. The only problem is, there are no websites that look at present day UHSA. As a side note, there are numerous other medical schools in the region, and none of them have Wiki articles. DrGladwin 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You are more than welcome to contribute to WP and write the articles on the other schools. :-) Leuko 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep The school is notable - 1) multiple WP:RS on it, 2) it is a post-graduate institution and inherently notable per the proposed WP:SCHOOLS. Per a comment here, the nom's reason for requesting deletion of the article is that "The UHSA students are upset, the admins are upset, everyone is upset" -- Evidently a WP:COI. How are official state websites that say it is a violation of the law to attempt to use the degree in that state not a WP:RS? Leuko 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Leuko, the state websites are true, but from their experience with UHSA in the 80s and 90s. And when you say, "UHSA is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. It is blacklisted by some US states," that is totally false. For example, UHSA is fully recognized in Georgia, Arizona, etc., provided that students have received their degree through traditional classroom instruction - like I'm doing. My point is, this article has nothing meaningful to contribute. People who wish to know about UHSA can call the school and talk to its students. I don't understand the point of posting info that is inaccurate and only instigates people. DrGladwin 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The phrase you quoted above uses the word "some." I count 5 states which verifiably restrict or ban the use of the degree. How can you say it is "totally false?" Leuko 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether the states are or are not justified in their policies is frankly irrelevant to whether or not we should have a Wikipedia article on the topic. JoshuaZ 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it says, "UHSA is not accredited by any recognised accreditation body," and that is totally wrong. I no longer want to debate the article as I've done enough of it and I'm tired of it. And I'm responsible for all this; I shouldn't have written this useless article in the first place. It has only lead to vandalism. DrGladwin 01:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a train of thought that unaccredited schools / diploma mills do not merit articles. Unfortunately there is not a single shred to stand on that makes accredited schools OK and unaccredited schools forbidden. Either they meet the necessary qualifications, or they don't. The school has been repeatedly covered in the media -- mostly in an unflattering light -- and many of these articles are referenced here from sources that fulfill WP:RS and WP:V. The sprotect should deal with the vandalism and is never a valid reason for deletion. Alansohn 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Fully qualifies for inclusion based on the references. Unaccredited schools and diploma mills have long been considered highly "notable" at wikipedia judging by our extensive coverage of the topic such as the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, which includes this school. We need more articles on these institutions, not less. --JJay 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alansohn and JJay, while I agree with your point, you're relying too much on other outdated websites. UHSA sure has had it's bad years, and all this article is doing is scraping those wounds open. Presently, UHSA staff and students (like me) are working very hard improve our reputation. I agree with Rob's point: "accredited insitutions have more verifiable info available, and unaccredited less." Here's where the problem lies - there isn't much info about UHSA. I must tell you it has had graduates that were blacklisted and banned from practicing in some states, on the other hand, it has had grads doing residency at the University of Chicago Hospitals (best in the country). Presently, we have a team of grads getting into the best residencies across the US, and trust me, I'm headed into that direction. It would be best to wait till ~2010 and see where UHSA is headed; as for now, it would be best to delete this article. DrGladwin 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Gladwin, I sympathize with your position and the last thing I want to see is a school be unfairly stigmatized on wikipedia by a bunch of POV warriors who have some hate filled agenda to push. But why can't we do a balanced article on this medical school? If its grads are doing residencies in major teaching hospitals, and thus hold roles of authority in local communities in numerous countries, I think the institution merits inclusion in wikipedia. The accreditation issue - past and present - need to be clarified. You have raised substantive concerns in that regard. But I think editing and more sources will lead to a more balanced and updated overview. In the meantime, I don't see any grounds for deletion. --JJay 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By nature accredited insitutions have more verifiable info available, and unaccredited less. What we need is *substantial* quality and quanity of external coverage. A lot of refs are listed, but going through them, I don't see the meat. If this place is notable, we should be able to get a better/clearer picture of its current state of affairs. JJay, I'm not clear on your point with List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. That list is a shameful violation of our verifiability policy (virtually every entry is "verified" by its absence from a reliable source). It was created as part of a crusade to save the world from "unaccredited institutions", by those who want Wikipedia to cover comprehensively what no mainstream media has been willing to cover sufficiently. The claim above, that we don't delete articles due ot edit wars, and using George W. Bush as an example, is misleading. Edit wars in George W. Bush are settled by an appeal to countless reliable sources (which give not only facts but *analysis* and summary of those facts). There really isn't a great source to settle disputes in this article. Also, this simply isn't an encylopedic article. It is a consumer protection alert. For instance "...so it is important to double check the licensing policy of any state you might be interested...". A fine piece of advice to be sure, but hardly to purpose of Wikipedia. --Rob 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob, I agree with you that the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning is a shameful violation of numerous wikipedia core policies including WP:V and WP:NOR. However, it also was a unanimous keep on AfD [63], thereby demonstrating the undeniable "notability" of the subject for the wikipedia community. The only way that the list can adhere to core policies is to do articles on all the underlying institutions. If the institutions lack the verifiability for an article thay should not be on the list. --JJay 21:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the unaccredited/diploma mill status of this article that (in this case) actually provides it's notability. There is enough here to pass this article using both the WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3 benchmarks. Trusilver 08:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if the school has changed and improved, its past makes it notable. If there are reliable sources that verify this change (they do not have to be found on "websites" -- you can cite printed matter as well), by all means, add that information to the article. But the school's changes do not make its past status, and criticism of same, less noteworthy. Shimeru 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools that have issues such as being called a substandard education (Kansas Court) and banned in major states like California,Texas would make it newsworthy. If we can see some improvements (such as dropping the infamous online medical school programs, advanced status for non-medical school training like chiropractic/nursing school/etc. it possibly would be like other Carib schools but I have seen no documentation that it is attempting to meet the norms of US medical schools on issues such as distance education, admission standards,etc.Azskeptic 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:46, 22 November 2006
  • Keep also per the above comments Albatross2147 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the more true information there is out there on unaccredited degree mills the easier it is to spot fakers who claim to have studied at them. Let's uncover all of the damn places. Pete Fenelon 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Helping people spot "fakers" and uncovering all of the "damn" places is an excellent goal, and legitimate mission of *other* web sites. However, you may not use Wikipedia for this mission of yours. Wikipedia already has a mission. It is to write an encyclopedia, based on verifiable information. It is a repository of previously established knowledge. It excludes *all* original research. Our original research policy effectively prohibits us from "uncovering" anything. Rather, we discuss, summarize, and explain what others have already discovered, exposed, and published (with sufficient depth and diversity in the coverage). --Rob 01:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what she said[edit]

That's what she said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article appears to be unencyclopedic, original research. I don't believe usage in a TV show justifies having an article about this form of joke. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:39, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Worlds Entertainment[edit]

Unknown Worlds Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable game mod company. Fails WP:V by having no reliable, third-party sources to write from. Recury 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Bigtop 23:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamespot.com might have written an article about them, but that doesn't mean the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. Gamespot is only 1 work. --Targetter (Lock On) 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My arguement was flawed. It has been fixed and fits the cited criterion better. --Targetter (Lock On) 00:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of IPW:UK Championship defenses[edit]

List of IPW:UK Championship defenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many title defense articles have been deleted, due to the fact they aren't that important. This is no different. RobJ1981 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deletion of previous articles about wrestling title defenses. This kind of information is unencyclopedic fancruft. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 13:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as unsourced resume. Can be restored or userfied if sources are provided. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sody[edit]

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

This is not an encyclopaedic entry - it is a marketing page and therefore should be deleted. It adds no value to the Wikipedia community BookwormUK 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral provide verification. Tulkolahten 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but only just. WMMartin 16:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - just about notable and verifiable, but the page needs to be rewritten to be less of a plug. Pete Fenelon 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if rewritten. It's basically a spam article initiated by someone who has only contributed this article, obviously the publicist for the subject of the article. However, the subject passes WP:BIO. -THB 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_20&oldid=1116878287"