Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 21

< November 20	November 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delist. El_C 03:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetic cycle[edit]

Although well intentioned, the author of this page is not familiar with a network of pages related to Bahá'í teachings. An appropriate link to this subject would be progressive revelation, which describes the Baha'i view of prophetic cycles and the rejuvenation of religion. Cuñado - Talk 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect progressive revelation. Demiurge 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected and retracted the AFD. Someone can close this page. Cuñado - Talk 21:12, 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 speedy delete (G1). theProject 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Benzaquin[edit]

"Contested" Prod. This began life as a hoax in which Mr Benzaquin did a number of things which should have been Googlable but weren't. Subsequent edits made it increasingly outlandish, and we're now left with this effort which is not only un-Googlable but patently impossible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and nonsensical. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BOLLOCKS. Readro 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense - "making a guinea pig fly to the moon using only a small rubberband." So tagged. MER-C 00:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy gonzales - Maybe add to the BJAODN page... Spawn Man 00:53, 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: Speedily deleted - nonsense, no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project norsica[edit]

A non-notable school project. Unreferenced and unwikified. Zero ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 00:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Nonsense/hoax. Since when is the Great Barrier Reef anywhere near the Bermuda Triangle? Leuko 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy gonzales - Per nom... Spawn Man 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to say. --Deenoe 01:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That actually sounds like nonsense almost meeting CSD. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense! Sr13 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G3, see WP:VANDAL: Silly vandalism - Creating joke or hoax articles .... is considered vandalism.. User who removed prod ( User:82.110.149.183 (edit | [[Talk:User:82.110.149.183|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ) has had multiple blocks. Phrase "Project norsica" = 0 ghits. I mean, you really have to try hard to pull as phrase out of the air that gets 0 ghits... Tubezone 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense. --SonicChao ^talk 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gomu gomu no delete Arrrr. Danny Lilithborne 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written and possible hoax, even though I like the idea of it. Atlantis Hawk 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete non-notable, possibly a hoax (as stated above), and no ghit is too telling a sign.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable school project. JIP | Talk 06:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please tag speedy candidates accordingly so the admins patrolling the CSD category will see them! Thanks. →Bobby← 14:58, 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 from Wikipedia. Please email me if Wiktionary actually wants this and has not already transferred it over. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words whose meanings changed when people misunderstood them in context[edit]

Lets see, unsourced, indiscriminate list of incomplete dicdefs, no stated criteria for inclusion other than the subjective "words whose meanings changed when people misunderstood them in context" Donald Albury 00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. You could easily fit this into Wiktionary. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete - either way, it doesn't belong here. MER-C 00:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageably POV. As evidenced by scientists adopting the word "habitat" being classified as a misunderstanding. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among other things, I am less confident than the author that the shift in meaning of these words constituted a "misunderstanding" rather than a creative or literary appropriation of the terms. Allon Fambrizzi 01:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete Unsalvagable original research. -Elmer Clark 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all unsourced OR- transwikiing would just lower the quality of Wiktionary. -- Kicking222 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting but unsourced OR. Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR †he Bread 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Intersting and useful but not quite encyclopedic. Atlantis Hawk 05:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Another Wiki not really an encyclopedic article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced original research. JIP | Talk 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; delete or edit any lines which you think are wrong. This is all provable from good dictionaries. This sort of shift in meaning of words is an integral part of the study of semantics and etymology and the history of languages. Anthony Appleyard 07:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Semantics and etymology do not need articles like this to remonstrate a particular point. Not encyclopedic and fails WP:OR, and has a little POV problem too. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 08:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge This is standard in any class on semantics. It should be merged into the article on semantics, or it should have more introduction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is actually a very interesting subject, should be sourced not scrapped. --Howrealisreal 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per Howrealisreal. --Lmblackjack21 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - This is the prime example of a transwikicational thingymajig. .V. 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete every entry which is unreferenced made-up-on-the-spot folk etymology. Edison 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per above. --- RockMFR 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary Transwiki Connection Next Exit per above material. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - subjective rubbish/original research. Pete Fenelon 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced statements may be deleted on sight, this article should be no different as the total is not greater than the sum of its parts. -THB 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are pretty neat linguistic borrowing trivia, but they fall into different categories: mistaken loan-translations, shortening, meaning transfer in English over time... they just don't make up a single category of meaning change. Jd2718 01:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth transwikifying. If folk etymology is deleted, there's nothing left. DGG 04:09, 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 Speedied, A7 Opabinia regalis 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inhuman (webcomic)[edit]

Non notable website for some amateur webcomic by some random internet pseudonym. Fails to attain an Alexa rank, and fails to include any indicator of notability. - Hahnch e n 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both for failing to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 01:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD A7. Both. Sr13 02:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a bit like advertising. Atlantis Hawk 05:27, 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 speedy delete (G11). theProject 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeaPCs[edit]

Nothing but advertising. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but someone who wasn't the author removed it, so here I am. -- T H L^CCD 01:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tagged as such. Spam, no assertion of notability, little context. --NMChico24 01:08, 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.--Hús ö nd 01:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Primary School[edit]

Article about an otherwise non-notable elementary school. Eirein 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - schools named after important people are interesting, or offering special services / programs, but this is clearly not notable.. --Deenoe 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number 6 in Bromley barely qualifies as notability. (If it were number 6 in England, I'd be saying otherwise.) --JB Adder | Talk 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:School has been rejected I beleieve, so being elementary has nothing to do with anything. Atlantis Hawk 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does that have to do with why this article should be kept? -- Kicking222 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability asserted in the article, which has existed for a month and a half in pretty much the same form as it currently exists (so no "allow for organic expansion" nonsense). -- Kicking222 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Delete per nom. Elementary schools aren't notable enough to merit an article, plus, this article is definitely short - about two sentences long. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely non-notable, elementary schools certainly don't deserve articles with very, very few exceptions. This isn't one of those exceptions. --The Way 08:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable schoolcruft. Seraphimblade 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to an appropriate article about the district or region. Obviously non-notable by any reasonable criteria, but I think redirects might help encourage some of the school-stub-spammers to direct their energies in more useful directions. Xtifr _tälk 12:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article about the parent community, per WP:SCHOOL. Edison 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. —The Gr e at Llama ^moo? 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Guettarda 22:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete -- nn schoolcruft Pete Fenelon 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn but how is this fictional school more notable? -THB 22:13, 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 (G4) and protect. The article may be unprotected and factual (i.e. not rumour) content introduced at such time as it becomes possible. theProject 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8[edit]

Page filled with nothing but rumors. Multiple attempts at speedy-deletion have just resulted in the page being re-created each time[1], so I am upgrading this to full AfD status. Recommend deletion and protection to prevent re-creation --Elonka 01:13, 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. Bucketsofg 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scally[edit]

I have no opinion on whether this should stay or go, but it seems very OR, NN & poorly written. Sounds like some teen or angry parent has written it. What does everyone think? Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef plus uncited plus orignal research. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Iff uncleanuppable redirect to Chav. Tonywalton | Talk 11:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chav. Demiurge 16:20, 19 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 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because the AfD tag was missing from the article. This should run for another five days. ~ trialsanderrors 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chav per Demiurge Darkspots 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be just as notable as Chav, Townies, etc. Don't merge- doesn't seem to be the same as Chav. --- RockMFR 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not harmful and not exactly original research. Atlantis Hawk 05:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well known British phenomenon and very used word. Do not redirect, it's not quite the same as a chav. Ben W Bell talk 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm an American, never been to the United Kingdom but I've heard this term on a number of ocassions. A quick google search will show that its a widely used term as well and a real subculture. --The Way 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --さくら木 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily verifiable, and certainly as widely used in GB as similar terms are in the US. It does need cleanup though, and I'm not sure whether or not the image is appropriate to the subject. →Bobby← 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary since it is a self described "slang term" and a well used word is still a word.Edison 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I'm aware, it's not simply a slang term but rather a term to describe an entire subculture of British youth. As such, it deserves an article. --The Way 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said: Completely different to Chavs, etc. --S kully Collins ^Edits 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too encyclopaedic for wiktionary. Needs a cleanup though.Cas Liber 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scally and Chav are not quite the same, well not in North West England. Afd is not about how well an article is written, but wheter or not it fulfills Wikipedia's goldern rules Notability etc. Mike33 10:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - badly written article, but scally 'culture' has been around on Merseyside for 30 years and the term is well known. Pete Fenelon 01:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article just needs editing down basically. I'll submitted bits to this page before, so I'll have a go at a total clean up later today. It's important to keep this, as it does chronicle an interesting social sub-culture. Arguably the first of it's type in the country.(For better or worse!) --Johncollinswork 09:43, 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. theProject 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCSULiving[edit]

Non-notable university related website. Tarret 01:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 01:55, 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 speedy delete (G11). theProject 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voyages[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable travel company. There are no references affirming notability per WP:CORP, and a Google search on "Voyages Hotels and Resorts" pulls up only a few hundred hits [2], most of which are sales-related. --Elonka 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam - corporate spa Voyages (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 02:03, 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.--Hús ö nd 01:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dose Cashville Men[edit]

Appears to fail WP:V, WP:MUSIC, and WP:COI. One of the article's two significant contributors, El Pulgare, wrote much of the article in the first person[3], indicating that he is likely a member of the group. There is no mention of the group at either the All Music Guide or Discogs. A Google search turned up only a small collection of Myspace, Xanga, and Wikipedia hits. - Walkiped 01:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero ghits outside of myspace and Wikipedia. Fails WP:V utterly. MER-C 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD A7, fails WP:V. skip (t / c) 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not adaquately show how the duo meets WP:Music, and based on my brief research, I kind of doubt that they meet the notabilkity requirements. →Bobby← 15:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —The Gr e at Llama ^moo? 21:14, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divinities (book)[edit]

Book published on lulu.com (link for this book here). Lulu.com is an interesting concept but basically a kind of vanity publisher. No reviews whatsoever. Misses WP:BK by a country mile, granted that WP:BK is just a proposal. Herostratus 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-published book. IrishGuy ^talk 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advise author of page of possible ways to make it more acceptable. Currently I do not have a problem with it being deleted except that it gives people who I am selling to a place to get information about the book and be linked to both versions. If deletion is inevitable, is there any better place on the web to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsawczak (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia isn't a venue for selling your work. Purchasing some webspace and building a website would be a better avenue for this. IrishGuy ^talk 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to sell it - just have a base point with the information about it and links to it. I do the advertising in person, I don't need wikipedia to do it. My article seems unbiased - all it does is state information needed. In the article it mentions that I'm 15. Right now I don't have much provision in the way of non-free website.

Alright, I suppose I'll just leave this, then, and tell people how to get directly to the site. Thanks for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsawczak (talk • contribs)

Writing an article about yourself is a serious conflict of interest. IrishGuy ^talk 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... I'm gathering by the link is... I could put it on my user page, and just direct my customers there? After all, I suspect little or none of the people who are going to be visiting Wikipedia will happen to visit my user page. May I do that? Is it constitutional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsawczak (talk • contribs)

User pages are not the same as personal webspace, nor are they to be used for commercial goals. IrishGuy ^talk 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying I mayn't? This is the exact text I would put there:

Luke Sawczak's only achievement so far is his book '''''Divinities''''', a semi-fantasy novel written at the age of 15. He describes it as falling into the "historical fiction, philosophy, and fantasy" categories.

It was published on http://www.lulu.com on November 18th, 2006. Its two editions were published simultaneously. Its content was rated "Everyone" by the author using Lulu.com's standards and the description he gave for it is as follows:

"A plague primarily affecting women has cut down the population. Being that there are less than one hundred in the ravaged, plebeian, Latin country called Aedificia, they are worshipped as gods. Euchris Harandr, a confused, cold and insightful man, is led through his life by various underground people working to balance the genders, and he battles his own conscience and upbringing to try and discover what is right, as well as his religious struggle; concluding with the obliteration of Aedificia and the the starting anew of civilization, perhaps to failure, perhaps to a new life."

As of [[November 20]], [[2006]], the http://www.lulu.com/content/526783 Hardcover Edition] costs $25.14 USD and the [http://www.lulu.com/content/527578 Paperback Edition] costs $15.66 USD, though both editions can be downloaded for $8.00 USD each (as a [[PDF]] document).

I'll take your next answer as the final one on whether or not I may use any aspect, shape or form of Wikipedia to redirect my customers and give them the information about my book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsawczak (talk • contribs)

That exact text is commercial advertising to entice people to spend money on your product. Wikipedia isn't a venue for personal advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 03:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're answering evasively, but I'll comply. One last clarification is that I did not intend the page to persuade anyone to buy the book, but rather that the only people to see the page would be people that already knew about the book from me in person and were looking for a method of buying it. Thanks for your focussed attention. I'll withdraw now. Delete the article as soon as you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsawczak (talk • contribs)

I'm being far from evasive. I don't think I can be any clearer. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise yourself and/or your products. It isn't for your personal commercial use. If you want your friends to know how to purchase the book, send them to lulu.com. IrishGuy ^talk 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: completely non-notable, self-advertising, COI and spamming. Maybe should be deleted immediately under G11. Ben W Bell talk 07:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm being far from evasive. I don't think I can be any clearer." - Well, you could have directly answered my directly-asked question* instead of restating your previous generalization...

("whether or not I may use any aspect, shape or form of Wikipedia to redirect my customers and give them the information about my book.")

Do you see what I mean?... you didn't link your answer with my question. Tis like someone saying, "Is President A going to remain in office?" and getting the reply, "I heard that President B has some policies on cats." If there was a connection, "The thing which people hate most about President A is his policies on cats," then the other person's reply would have been an answer to the first person's question... ...but no matter.

Delete as an advertisement and a non-notable book. Stardust8212 13:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons above. The page's author is reminded that WP is not personal web space and also that it is a good idea to sign comments on talk pages using ~~~~. →Bobby← 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam -- Whpq 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not personal web space. Suggest author get a Geocities or set up a Myspace page for his book.--Isotope23 20:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever other reasons you may conjure up, it's not spam, Whpq.--Lsawczak 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it is not sufficiently notable and really for no other reason. Self-publishing is irrelevant--who cares who published it if it's notable enough. I think Lsawczak is trying to act in good faith, but is just unclear on wikipedia 's purpose and policies. Considering the dates for his user account contributions, we should probably remember to avoid biting the newbies. When Divinities becomes popular/notable enough we'll welcome it back. Dall ben 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the best summary of it I've seen yet. --Lsawczak 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotion from what I can see - wait for the book to become notable "then/if" someone else can write a more objective treatment. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COI and author should not be involved in this discussion. At all. -THB 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:30, 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, userfy to transwiki individual idioms on request. This essentially boils down to a quorum over whether "Not a dictionary" is applicable to this list, with a strong majority in favor of removing it from Wikipedia, either to delete or to transwiki (supposedly most of the content is already there, which I didn't check). There is also a preponderance by "keep" commenters to opine based on the usefulness, which is not a strong argument as the information will still be available. We don't have a monopoly on free content. Lastly, there is also the simple problem of sourcing, which has in all the debate not been addressed. There is of course no prejudice against creating articles for individual idioms, as long as they contain encyclopedic content. ~ trialsanderrors 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of idioms in the English language (A)[edit]

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

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

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

This page is only a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These already exist as single definitions over at Wiktionary, see wikt:Category:Idioms and this page adds very little to them. Unreferenced and possibly original research.

There's another 25 of these to come (which are not nominated), so consider this as a test case. Contested prod. MER-C 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This information is not generally found in dictionaries, and proves useful as a list. --Czj 02:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, however, to be found in Wiktionary, which has several categories of idioms, as the nominator linked to, as well as several appendices, including wikt:Appendix:English idioms. Please make the effort, follow the link, and actually look. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked, an impressive as that page is, it links through to individual Wiktionary entries, which in themselves do not provide country/region of usage information. They also do not provide the extended information found for some of the entries. How would you suggest the country/region of usage be recorded, as that is one of the intents of this article so as to allow non-native users of idioms to determine their appropriate use? WLD 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'Where used' information is uncited and occasionally doubtful, but wiktionary certainly has the capacity to store it. It's not encyclopedic. Apples and oranges is a good example of an encyclopedic article about an idiom, but it is in the rare minority in that respect. Vectro 07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wiktionary's guide to entry layout explains how to mark usages that are specific to, say, U.S. English, and there are plenty of entries in Wiktionary that are marked as being Commonwealth English, Australian English, U.S. English, and so forth, that can be emulated. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The category is sufficient. wikipediatrix 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is only one article nominated here. The rest will follow if and when this article gets deleted. MER-C 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all) per Czj. Also your nomination is a bit confusing... how can this information be included on Wiktionary AND be original research here? If it's not Wiktionary/dictionary material, then I think it belongs here. --- RockMFR 03:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no indication whatsoever that the "nationality" of idioms is correct or even verifiable. Hence the possibility of original research. MER-C 03:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many books on idioms that would have this information- it's unreferenced, but no, this isn't original research. --- RockMFR 04:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lots of dicdefs are still dicdefs. This list is too indiscriminate to be encyclopedic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary. Atlantis Hawk 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Czj. And it's not just because I started contributing to the articles when I discovered them... mais non! Danny Lilithborne 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, this is a useful list of idioms. JIP | Talk 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not only does it seem to violate original research but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this type of information belons in Wiktionary. --The Way 08:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Original research throughout. -- IslaySolomon | talk 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigh. This page (and the other 25) were created to split up an article which had become over-long, using the same technique as in List of Latin phrases. The original article was created as part of a popular and well-contributed to effort to document the differences between different varieties of English, and is of great use for those people trying to understand cross-cultural issues, as well as trying to understand unfamilar idioms. It is part of a group of articles, including List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom, List of words having different meanings in British and American English, and List of British words not widely used in the United States, which as a whole have survived numerous AfDs. There is a move to relocate the content to Wiktionary, but the proposers of such a move have not demonstrated the practicality of this, especially as cross-Wiki authentication is still not implemented, and lack of IDs on Wiktionary would tend to put off contributors, as at least one has explicitly stated. Pending agreement on the mechanism for migration to Wiktionary, consensus could then probably be built for such a move. WLD 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and by the way, it would have been better to put the AfD nomination on the main List of idioms in the English language and List of idioms in the English language (full), rather than one of the transcluded sub-pages, where it is far less prominent. Could I suggest the AfD is moved to there so the proper audience (videance?) sees it? WLD 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put the AfD on this article to establish a precedent for dealing with the other 24 (and the front page). MER-C 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Putting it on the 'front page' would have been more visible, in my opinion. However, I've added notification on the two 'front pages' and notified recent editors of the AfD. WLD 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That editors are unwilling to pull their fingers out and edit Wiktionary, which is as easily editable as Wikipedia is, is not a reason for overriding our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. As for "pending agreement on the mechanism for migration": We've had a transwikification process for several years, now. I suggest learning about it. It's also unnecessary in this case, as Wiktionary already has categories and appendices that are better than this misplaced dictionary of idioms in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe it is a case of simply 'trying harder'. For better or worse, Wikipedia is far better known than Wiktionary, and contributors are apparently more motivated to contribute to the former rather than the latter. I have learned about transwikification, and I have 'tried harder', and have an account on Wiktionary. Do not presume my knowledge. User:Rossami is even proposing it for some other articles, but has yet to demonstrate it. Just because you think something is easy or obvious does not make it so for others. It might also have been better to propose a Copy to Wiktionary rather than outright deletion - note that Wiktionary does not give country/region of usage for the idioms that it records - which is actually useful information, and of cource citations need to be improved from the current non-existent state of most, if not all entries. All in all, I think the Deletion process is an overly blunt weapon for improving this article. WLD 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This stuff is already at Wiktionary, hence {{Copy to Wiktionary}} is unrequired. MER-C 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? Have you checked every entry? And what about the 'where used' information, which, as far as I can see, is not in Wiktionary? Deleting information contibuted in good faith by many people will tend to put people off from contributing, which is not what I thought Wikipedia was about. My personal view is that information like this probably does belong in Wiktionary, but I have not voted Delete, or even Transwiki on the basis that I an not convinced that the current state of Wiktionary is fit for purpose. Uncle G would no doubt disagree, but I am sure that there is room in a debate for different opinions. Simply pointing people at individual Wiktionary entries, or a category does not provide a proper replacement for the function this article (and others like it) provide. To use the deletionist/inclusionist tags, I would probably be of an inclusionist bent, and I see little if any harm that this article is doing - especially as Wikipedia is not paper, and it could well do positive good. If the article is less comprehensive than Wiktionary, I can see good grounds for adding an introductory paragraph that points out that it is not comprehensive and that more comprehensive and/or accurate information can be found at Wiktionary - thereby encouraging people to look at and use Wiktionary. Simply deleting the article removes that signpost, will demotivate good faith contributors, and removes what would be a useful link between the -ipedia and the -tionary. WLD 08:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "It might also have been better to propose a Copy to Wiktionary rather than outright deletion" — No. I repeat: It is unnecessary in this case, as Wiktionary already has categories and appendices that are better than this misplaced dictionary of idioms in the encyclopaedia. Notice the fact, demonstrated below, that Wikipedia has got several entries wrong, for example. Wikipedia is simply bad at being a dictionary. There are many examples of mis-placed mini-dictionaries that Wikipedia has grown here and there, that Wiktionary has done far better at, often from a standing start. This mis-placed dictionary of idioms is one. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We obviously differ in our opinions of the relative merits of the Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary. I do not believe that Wiktionary presents information collected together in Wikipedia articles like this one in anywhere near as good/useful/accessible format - so in my opinion, until Wiktionary improves to equal or excel the Wikipedia articles, I will not support a 'Delete' or 'Transwiki'. As it happens, I agree with the underlying tenet - that such information should be in Wiktionary, but I do not think the Wiktionary presentation style is ready for it yet. In addition, I do not believe that Wiktionary and Wikipedia are sufficiently integrated for editors as yet. Automatic cross-Wiki logins should at least be implemented. Where that particular project has got to, I don't know. In your opinion, I'm probably blinded by the merits of Wikipedia; and in my opinion, I think you are blinded by the merits of Wiktionary. While neither of us is likely to convince the other of the correctness of our views, there is probably a reasonable middle way. I think that middle way would not include a summary 'Delete' of this article, but is more likely to be a 'Transwiki' pending improvement of Wiktionary's presentation style for such information - so it is not a vote for a Transwiki now. I really don't think it is essential to delete this article now. WLD 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a great deal of debate on a related policy item about the inclusion of Glossaries in Wikipedia - see here: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Glossaries. Rather than rehash that debate here, it is probably worth reading the quite voluminous debate there as well, as I think the arguments apply here. As I understand it (and I am open to being corrected here), no consensus was reached as to their inclusion or exclusion, so a glossary's inclusion needs to be argued according to its individual merits. A 'List of idioms' seems pretty close in structure to being a glossary, so I would conclude that it is not a matter of policy that they be excluded. WLD 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary + original research. This is almost as bad as List_of_two-letter_English_words. Wikipedia is not a place for Scrabble/crossword-cruft! MartinDK 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a dictionary of idioms, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy. And Wiktionary already has far better than this, with over 2600 idioms (counting just the English language alone) at this point, all with their own individual articles. I strongly suggest that the Lost Lexicographers wandering Wikipedia in search of a dictionary come to Wiktionary. You'll find that a quite large one has already been developed over the past several years. Strong delete. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WLD. Very useful for both native and non-native speakers of English. --さくら木 11:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So are the yellow pages. That doesn't make it Wikipedia material. This could easily be put in Wikitionary so we could stay an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. I believe that's why Wiktionary was created though most people seem to miss that point. MartinDK 11:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary is already right there, and already more useful, since it has all of this and far more. If non-native speakers of English want a dictionary of idioms, they should use the dictionary that is right there. Wiktionary, after all, aims to document all idioms from all languages in all languages. Wikipedia, in contrast, is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Uncle G 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously violates WP:WINAD. Recury 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, obviously violates WP:WINAD. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Dicdefs and original research. Edison 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Uncle G. Wickethewok 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WLD. Explaining literary allusions and other cultural backgrounds behind English idioms is not dictionary material. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The information contained on the list goes beyond what you would find in a dictionary. It selects idioms, their locations and meanings. Perhaps a fraction is original research, but most of the terms are well-known. 129.98.212.74 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; in particular, these are unsourced and constitute original research. Some are matter of opinion. Many of the terms on the list are not idioms at all. Not all maxims, axioms, literary allusions and metaphors are "idioms". Agent 86 19:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I like this concept, it has several problems. 1) It is better suited for a dictionary, and Wiktionary's coverage is already more complete. 2) There is no real standard for the information at this point in time. The areas in which these are used are pretty questionable as far as accuracy, and I think a lot of them are just editors making judgment calls. This alone isn't a reason for deletion, but combined with the dictionary thing, I feel it's better to improve the already more complete location of this information at Wiktionary and let this one go. DISCLOSURE: I got an unbiased notification of this AfD on my talk page. GassyGuy 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This list is useful as an encyclopedic article due to the depth with which it covers many of the particular idioms. I might choose to weaken my 'keep' proposal by advocating that the list be shortened to a select, group of idioms per letter about which multitudes can be written and they can be explained in great detail. E.g., "at sixes and sevens" is a very old idiom about which the history and cultural influence and relevance can be given, as well as information about its use in print. In contrast, supposed idioms like "at one's beck and call" are barely more than unique diction, not deserving of the title, 'idiom'. Illuminatiscott 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Big top 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to keep but WP is not a dictionary †he Bread 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki --HappyCamper 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Czj's remark has been sufficiently rebutted by Uncle G. Per illumantiscott, I'd be willing to keep the list if we can shorten it to idioms that are notable enough to have their own article, though I might also favor categorization in that case. Note also that I came across this AfD because of a canvassing campaign by West London Dweller (talk · contribs) which included my talk page. Cheers, Vectro 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My intention was to politely request recent editors of the article to take a look at this debate, which had (in my opinion) been initiated but putting the AfD notice in a less-than-prominent position, given the article's structure. The messages were placed by hand (no bot) on people's talk pages in as neutral a manner as I could, choosing all the recent editors in the last two pages of history that did not edit via anonymous IP IDs. If this was wrong, I apologise. WLD 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is generally frowned upon and seldom results in any advantage for the person doing so. However, it is not as bad as votestacking and since you are being open about it your apology should be sufficient. The AfD will still be settled based on arguments by experienced non-anon editors and not votes. Often what you see is a whole stack of votes going in one direction and with very little text to explain why they voted that way. That is votestacking and will almost certainly result in the closing admin disregarding the votestacking sides arguments. In other words, it isn't worth the effort. Because the system is open to abuse it is something we are very aware of and sometimes that results in well-meaning people getting frowned upon. MartinDK 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The following idioms (14 out of 35) are not currently present on wiktionary, thus a transwiki process should be preferred to mere deletion.
1. Airs and Graces (but Wiktionary does have 'putting on airs')
2. Albatross around one's neck (but Wiktionary does cover albatross as burden, and I'm sceptical about the definition given here.)
3. All bark and no bite
4. All piss and wind
5. All talk and no trousers
6. All over the place
7. All roads lead to rome (I'm quite sceptical about this definition)
8. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride
9. have ants in one's pants
10. Any port in a storm
11. Argue the toss
12. As far as I can throw you (is this really an idiom? More of a cliche metaphor.)
13. Asleep at the wheel.
14. A stitch in time saves nine
I still think this list should go, but we need to move what's left over to wiktionary first. Vectro 07:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary has had all over the place since 2005. "A stitch in time saves nine" isn't an idiom. It's a proverb. You can find a whole list of such proverbs in Wikiquote at q:English proverbs. You'll find "All roads lead to rome." which is also a proverb and not an idiom, there, too. This is yet more proof, as if any were needed after years of cumulative evidence, that Wiktionary and Wikiquote are better at being dictionaries of idioms and collections of quotations than Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is simply bad at being a dictionary. Uncle G 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience of Wiktionary's handling of glossaries leads me to the opposite opinion to Uncle G - that is to say, I currently believe that Wiktionary is simply bad at handling glossaries. I am hopeful it may improve, however. Categorising wiktionary entries as idioms, then relying on the category for the presentation of the list of idioms simply doesn't work, prividing a list with no context to the entries. Individual articles give no indication of where particular idioms are used. Wiktionary is not yet ready to take over the functions of this and related articles. When it is, I would support a transwiki. WLD 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep useful, but as one mentioned above, wiki is not a dictionary. Tulkolahten 08:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep think of it as a supplement to the idiom article. Otherwise, delete all of these, too:

Mother I'd Like To Fuck[edit]

To not delete

Not Delete - there is already a wikitionary entry for this, but any attempts to add more encyclopedic data to it is viewed as inappropriate, as it is a DICTIONARY, not an encyclopedia (see MILF on wiktionary). I agree it needs more work, and would welcome any assistance in contributing to the entry. Reillyd 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICT and WP:OR Markeer 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article would need major cleanup to pass WP:OR. Darkspots 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as duplication. MILF is already in Wiktionary. Tubezone 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Wiktionary redirect. What needs to be said is already at Wiktionary. -- saberwyn 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition: - Delete as second option. -- saberwyn 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then tag with {{wi}} per above. MER-C 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary entry as per Saberwyn. - Mig ^(Talk) 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with soft redirect as above, WP:NOT Urban Dictionary or any other variety. Seraphimblade 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tag with {{wi}} per MER-C †he Bread 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~with soft redirect~~. The term is famous enough to be mentioned, but the current article contents have very little worth. JIP | Talk 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to just delete per MiracleMat below. JIP | Talk 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete it. This is an encyclopedia. Besides, the Pie movie didn't invent this. When did the IMDB become the word of god? MiracleMat 10:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The acronym already has a wiktionary entry (it's linked to on the WP page). There's really not much more to the article than the dicdef and a healthy dose of OR. →Bobby← 15:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then tag with {{wi}} per above. Chompsillisay 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Absolutely no merit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete per nom. No merit also. Also delete soft redirects to the page. Big top 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stebbins 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ArmadilloFromHell 08:12, 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 speedy delete (G11). theProject 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xin (flash)[edit]

This page was deleted as an uncontested prod in early October, and has been recreated three different times now, having been speedied as a recreation twice. Since I feel that the recreation should count as contesting the prod, I've brought it here to be decided on once and for all. It does have an assertion of notability for winning awards (see the bottom of the article) and whether or not this is kept will, I'm sure, depend on the significance of said awards and being able to source it. No opinion. Grand master ka 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per {{db-web}}. Absolutely no assertion of notability- winning portal awards on NewGrounds does not assert notability, as one of those can be bestowed by, for example, being the third-most-viewed flash on a certain day. -- Kicking222 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - wtfunkymonkey 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not indicate notability as required in WP:WEB. WEB excludes those daily web-based awards by a hosting provider. "The website or content has won a well known and independent award" i.e. Eisner or Webby, according to the footnote. A7 per MER-C. Salt it too. --Kunzite 04:40, 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 speedy delete (G11). theProject 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Mill Shopping Center[edit]

Not currently speedy criteria for malls, so here it is. D enni ^talk 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as...mallcruft? NN in any case. Seraphimblade 04:23, 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 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live At Slims[edit]

This is listed as an album by Eagles of Death Metal; however, it's not actually so. It is simply a downloadable live performance, and fails to meet notability requirements for albums. Prod removed by anon, nominator advocates deletion. --keepsleeping slack off! 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete, no preference at all. --humblefool ® 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we were to allow this, then it would need serious disambiguation as dozens of bands who allow taping/downloading have played at Slim's, and there are many hundreds of "Live at Slims'" shows on the Internet Archive alone. That way lies insanity! :) Xtifr _tälk 13:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete per nom and Xtifr. BTW, "At" should not be capitalised. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: also, "Slim's" should have an apostrophe[4]. I suspect the point may be moot, though. :) Xtifr _tälk 00:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xtifr. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:33, 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 delete (G1). theProject 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XTelekineticx[edit]

A user page that may have been erroneously created (given that a carbon copy of the article is given on User page. Since I can't have it speedy deleted (per speedy delete criteria for articles) I have to bring it here instead. If the user gives permission, then an admin can speedy it. JB Adder | Talk 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be speedied by the "What the hell is this article talking about" clause? If not, delete. -- Kicking222 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Because of how it's written, it'll be treated as fiction, therefore crietria G1 does not apply. --JB Adder | Talk 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete at high speed. As stated, user page in mainspace. -- saberwyn 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's an article about someone's MMORPG character, very little context. So tagged. MER-C 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - obviously an erroneous user page speedy by WP:SNOW -- wtfunkymonkey 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete either per WP:SNOW or as patent nonsense (G2). Seraphimblade 04:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Xspeedyx Xdeletex Xpatentx xnonsense. User:XDannyx XLilithbornex 04:36, 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 No consensus, as usual - crz crztalk 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Tuggerah[edit]

Contested prod of a non-notable Australian shopping mall. Article has no sources affirming notability per WP:CORP. Elonka 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a Westfield. Its a shopping centre. Its in Tuggerah. Not much more can be said. Delete -- saberwyn 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition - Merge to Tuggerah article as second option. -- saberwyn 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is in contradiction of WP:NOT#DIR & WP:LOCAL. Todd661 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Tuggerah article. Todd661 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 03:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. 216 Google News Archives results [5] shows that quite a bit more can be said about it. We don't need a list of stores. It is at least worthy of mention in the Tuggerah article.Capitalistroadster 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, almost all "sources" on Google News mention the mall as a location in which something is happening or the like, they are not about it. Almost all are from the same paper. None that I looked at so far (granted, didn't read all 216), show any indication that this would pass WP:CORP-the requirement is for non-trivial mention, these mentions are trivial. Seraphimblade 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be expanded upon, some photos perhaps, more on the history.Firelement85 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~— Fireelement85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ — Firelement85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  - Comment Maybe Fireelement85 has not made many contributions to Wikipedia, but I, Firelement85, with no double e, have made a couple, I am a fairly newly registered user thank you very much Elonka. Firelement85 11:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and cleanup, but get rid of the list of stores. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. Failing all that, merge to the Tuggerah, New South Wales article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable shopping centre nominated in bad faith. Rebecca 09:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Accusing someone of bad faith without presenting reason or evidence might be considered an example of bad faith in itself, or a personal attack. Have you a reason to believe that the nominator was not acting in good faith? It certainly seems that there is a legitimate controversy over notability, and lack of sourcing is a valid concern. Seraphimblade 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Capitalistroadster. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, large mall notable to the local population. Get rid of the list of stores. bbx 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited to show notability. Edison 16:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't all these delete votes be merge votes at the very least? Even WP:LOCAL advocates that. Really, I don't see why these malls are being brought to AFD at all - they should all be getting merged somewhere per WP:LOCAL or kept. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator). The article has no sources, and no indication of notability. With a complete lack of references, this article as it stands is in complete violation of the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. I am stunned that anyone with any kind of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, would say "keep" on it. Is there some kind of bizarre agenda going on here, to include unreferenced articles on Wikipedia? --Elonka 18:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this falls under the heading of something so benign that being militant about sources is unwarranted. Compare to Florida State Road 579. It's only sources are maps. The maps show it exists. So what's the problem? Are you saying the mall doesn't exist? Should we provide a Google Map for proof? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the policy at WP:NOT. Just because something exists, does not mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia is neither a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a travel guide. --Elonka 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you better get to deleting a whole boatload of articles on malls and schools and roads and libraries and buildings, etc., etc. Should keep you busy for the next year or so. That'll teach 'em. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Something drawing in 216 Google News hits is obviously notable, and there isn't any reason not to accomodate our readers with an article somewhere on the topic. Is there a reason malls are being targeted right now? I would think that most every major mall (not shopping center) would easily qualify under WP:CORP and this one without a doubt meets our corp guidelines. Silensor 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe mention in the Tuggerah article. No real evidence of notability here. Lankiveil 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: List of stores shouldn't be there, and no notability. No evidence in the article that there's anything notable to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. I also see no evidence that there will be enough information for it to get past being a stub. The Google News hits are mostly press releases, santa will be there, stores are opening, shoppers ignore construction, drop off food while at the mall, Lone Star steakhouse for the urban cowboy in you, etc, etc. Basically fluff from tiny local papers that get served up by an online service for a few bucks apiece. As mentioned, what remains can be merged and a redirect given. jesup 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having lived near this center, and knowing how it is the most major shopping center between Sydney and Newcastle, as well as apparent notability from the publicity it gets from being the largest and most popular shopping center in the Central Coast region, I believe that this is notable. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added six references, including one from The Age and two from some of the biggest Unions in Australia, which hopefully demonstrate notability regarding the death of a worker that sparked union protests and made it into interstate papers. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Westfield Tuggerah has a far greater impact on the economy of Tuggerah than WBJ does on the economy of Bondi Junction, and it was very recently retained. People up and down the central coast travel to Westfield Tuggerah, other Westfields service fairly local (if large populaion) communities - how far do people travel specifically to go to Westfield Bondi Junction?

Ga rr ie 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GarrieIrons and Daniel. The references added by Daniel Bryant make this article more than notable and defeat arguments based on lack of notability. I've never been to the shopping centre in question, but I have driven past it, and it is one of the largest shopping centres in the Central Coast (it would vie with Erina Fair for THE largest one), and is a notable contribution to the Central Coast community. JROBBO 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If an obscure suburban Glasgow railway station can become Wikipedia's millionth article (and be turned into a respectable "good"-class article), then we have room for a major, regionally important shopping centre.--Leflyman^Talk 08:01, 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 Delete - crz crztalk 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts 29 Network[edit]

Non-notable "church planting network", doesn't assert notability, doesn't even explain what "church planting" is. Categorized as a church even though they aren't one. Fails WP:CORP regardless. wikipediatrix 03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-encyclopedic drivel. The Crying Orc 08:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and yes I do know what church planting is). Guy (Help!) 10:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ gets 39,300 Google hits [6], and the founder seems to be notable, though the article could use some work. Hut 8.5 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not just the quantity of the hits, but the quality. Most of what I see in those Google results are blogs, ads, and linkspam. However: I did find this, which makes me now reconsider and recommend that Acts 29 Network be Merged into Mars Hill Church. wikipediatrix 18:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With 39,300 I think it's quite probable that there's at least two decent references in there somewhere, but there's no way anyone could look through them all. A Merge seems like a good idea. Hut 8.5 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's only 293 unique hits, which is what matters. The only thing that makes me see any notability at all is that the book about Mars Hill is published by Zondervan, a major publisher. wikipediatrix 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- NN godcruft. Pete Fenelon 01:32, 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. Per JROBBO (talk)'s request I have moved the article into his userspace. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbo Presbyterian Church[edit]

non-notable now-defunct church. States "For many years, Dubbo Presbyterian was your average country church" and then notes they've now split up. No notability asserted. wikipediatrix 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or even speedy A7-don't even see an assertion of notability, let alone anything that would substantiate one if it were there. Seraphimblade 04:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-encyclopedic drivel. The Crying Orc 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. Dubbo Presbyterian Church is not dufunct. In this case the "spilt" referes to dividing for the purposes of growth: "The church has split again, for the purpose of planting other congregations, rather than growing one large church." 2. While not mentioned in the article, Dubbo Presbyterian Church may have a claim of notability. It has been the source of an amount of contemporary worship music, not as well known as Hillsong, but still well known in Evangelical Christianity, particularly in the Presbyterian Church and among Sydney Anglicans. Blarneytherinosaur talk 09:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Depending on the notability of the music, that may indeed be a claim to notability. Can you source that statement? Seraphimblade 10:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I have added a bit of information to the article along these lines, including sources. That's all I can do tonight. Blarneytherinosaur talk 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment/suggestion Given new evidence, I continue to remain convinced on the delete here-(source 2 and 3 only drop the church's name, source 4 doesn't mention it at all). However, perhaps a better idea would be to look into an article on the music organization (if it's received a bit more coverage, it could well pass WP:BAND), and merge this one there? Seraphimblade 11:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to comment/suggestion. People would be more likely to recognise "Plainsong Music" or "Emu Music" than "Dubbo Presbyterian Church". I assume the fact that it all started with the Dubbo PC would be noted in the proposed article, so I would still like to be able to link here, but I'll leave that up to the community to decide. Blarneytherinosaur talk 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clearly nn. Are churches the new high schools on wikipedia? Enough with the non-notable churches, OK? Lurker ^oi! 11:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Churches are not the new schools - as dodgy as WP:SCHOOLS might be, churches have no established criteria for deletion or keeping, and so AfDs on churches tend to be arbitrary and inhabited by those who believe no churches are notable. The problem with churches is that they tend not to attract mainstream media attention unless they do something very controversial - so a large church that attracts many people, unless it's a megachurch (and some of them haven't even survived) tends not to be established as notable, but should be, given the large amount of people that they attract - think about it, if other groups of people drew crowds of thousands every week (I'm not saying this church does, but hear me out), they would be notable in many cases - but not churches. Some of Sydney's biggest churches have been deleted, as well as Melbourne's second largest church - if they can't stay, what can? Please enlighten us - I would welcome your input. JROBBO 12:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"so AfDs on churches tend to be arbitrary and inhabited by those who believe no churches are notable" And your evidence for that slur is? There are hundreds of thousands of churches in the world. At least. So a church has a hard job proving notability, just as a website with many visitors would not automatically be considered notable. If you want a set of notability guidelines for churches, why not create a notability guidelines page? Lurker ^oi! 12:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look through the AfD debates on churches in the last six months you'll find that I'm right - I think people who don't attend them don't understand that the church is more important than just its building, and for the reasons above it's often hard to get independent sources in a way that a lot of other organisations don't. The debates are by their own nature arbitrary, since there are no guidelines. To answer your request, I am going to create a notability guidelines page because this has got out of hand - it's about time there were some criteria established, instead of "no churches are notable" which seems to be the norm. JROBBO 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing it and to contributing to it. But I don't think there's a "no churches are notable" vibe going on here, quite the opposite. wikipediatrix 21:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bryson Smith and the church are very well known in Sydney Christian circles, especially for Plainsong and Emu having started there and the church's involvement in its establishment. If the consensus is not to keep (which appears to be the fait d'accompli nowadays), I would beg that a merge as per WP:LOCAL be done; it's definitely something worth including in the local area article. JROBBO 12:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will reserve judgement pending evidence of notability beyond the website mentioning the music. Have there ever been two or more independent newspaper articles about the church which discuss it in more than a passing way (like announcements of service times, or of wedding ceremonies there? That could sway my vote in favor of keeping. Edison 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the CD is notable (and I'm not convinced that it is), it still doesn't necessarily transfer that notability to the Church. If more valid sources about the CD emerge, it could mean that the CD should get its own article in which the Dubbo Church's article's info can be merged to. wikipediatrix 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one CD - EMU Music, and its two predecessors have put out about 15 CDs now or have been the Australian distributor and reseller for them. But then again, Emu already has a WP article. JROBBO 01:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any references to this church on Google News Archive [7] or Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre. While I do not doubt that there is a church of that name in Dubbo, I do doubt that there is enough material available to make a standalone article. It is worthy of mention in the Dubbo article. I do think JROBBO's idea of WP:CHURCH is a good idea. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe mention in the relevant locality articles, and music group articles. Lankiveil 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Request to closing moderator - can this article be userfied to my userpage if consensus is delete, so I can merge the relevant part of it into the Emu music article, and the Dubbo article? JROBBO 11:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --Roisterer 06:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbyterian Church[edit]

Notability not asserted for this nondescript church in Sumter, South Carolina. wikipediatrix 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 05:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-encyclopedic drivel. The Crying Orc 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's precious in the eyes of God, but Wikipedia is not written by God. If it were, there'd be fewer typos. Lurker ^oi! 11:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, no sources. Edison 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lurker. Shadow1 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. Pete Fenelon 01:33, 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 Passover. Yomangani ^talk 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food rules for Passover[edit]

There's nothing here that isn't already covered elsewhere in other articles. Nothing even worth merging elsewhere that I can see. wikipediatrix 03:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kashrut and Passover cover this more than well enough as is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passover,--Ioannes Pragensis 11:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Passover. It seems like the most logical place to find the information. Movementarian (Talk) 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered as mentioned by nom. Also, I doubt anybody will search Wikipedia for "Food rules for Passover". The common phrase for anybody who knows about it would be "Kosher for Passover". I've added a redirect to Passover for that phrase. --Charlene 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and duplicative. Edison 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I am familiar with the subject, and it is covered adequately by the articles on Passover and chametz. I suggest redirecting to chametz. 129.98.212.74 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per Movementarian. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. per Movementarian. Guettarda 22:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. --Masamage 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Passover. Zarbat 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Passove, if there's anything to merge DGG 04:19, 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 delete - there is a strong consensus to delete. The assertions made by the keep advocates did not result in any notability being established on the actual article.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Church (Naperville)[edit]

Notability not asserted or established for this nondescript church in Naperville, IL. Fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-encyclopedic drivel. The Crying Orc 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churchcruft Lurker ^oi! 11:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into Calvary Church (Naperville, Illinois). This is not a non-descript church. It is a "mega-church" that has recieved much attention - Google search turns up many references to its size and influence. Deli nk 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some policy which stipulates that 'mega churches' are de facto notable? If not, then the above is not an argument. If so, that is also problematic, because a round-tower church in Suffolk with a congregation of 10 (or none!) is surely more notable because of its architectural and historical uniqueness than a modern 'mega church' of which there are thousands. Moreover, the 'mega church' argument entrenches bias towards evangelical/pentecostals, as opposed to more traditional denominations which do not use 'mega churches' (like the CofE with its little, quaint, historical round-tower churches). The Crying Orc 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has yet to decide for itself what even definitively constitutes a "megachurch", so no, there's no valid reason for anyone to automatically vote keep just because something calls itself one. Just because they have a huge building is meaningless: huge shopping malls get deleted as non-notable every week here. wikipediatrix 16:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...it is worrying that this 'mega-church' argument is popping up everywhere, then. The Crying Orc 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see I need to clarify a bit. I haven't heard the "mega-church" argument before, so I don't know what you are referring to. Why shouldn't one of the largest churches in one of the largest cities in Illinois be notable?A church with ~5000 members[8] dwarfs most schools which are considered notable almost by default. (Ironically, it appears the church runs a school, so it possible that Wikipedia would keep an article on the school, but not the church? Just a curious thought.) Also, I don't find the argument about bias towards evangelical/pentecostal all that relevant. If one denomination has churches that are on average larger than those of another denomonation, those individual churches are going to be inherently more influential and notable. Wikipedia is simply more likely to take note of something that is "bigger" no matter what the context. Can anyone point me to discussion of this "mega-church argument that's popping up everywhere"? I'm curious about what others may have said. Deli nk 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at AfDs for churches (there are a few ongoing) the argument that thousands of attendees=notable pops up all the time. A high school with ~5000 members would be notable, a church is not as there are a lot of churches that size. Size does not equal influence, indeed a suburban megachurch may have a lot less influence on its community than say a traditional parish church, as the megachurch could largely cater to those who attend. Ted Haggard's church, being politically influential, would be a notable megachurch, a similarly sized-church may not be. And where does this idea that schools are considered notable by default come from? Schools are nominated for deletion as often as churches. Lurker ^oi! 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Megachurch, macrochurch, microchurch, or nanochurch, I can't find any press coverage about it, and no cites to show notability are provided in the article. Edison 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A church with 10,000+ members, some significant impact on cultural or current events would be notable. This article fails to demonstrate any notability at all. NeoFreak 18:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into Calvary Church (Naperville, Illinois). There definitely needs to be a merger. The church is one of the top churches in terms of size in the Assemblies of God fellowship, and one of the largest churches in greater Chicago. When in doubt, keep. Realkyhick 04:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- NN godcruft, and virtually no content in the article. Pete Fenelon 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calvary Church (Naperville, Illinois) has also been nominated for deletion. The articles has more content than this, but the same concerns regarding notability apply. Please contribute to the debate, linked to above. Lurker ^oi! 10:56, 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 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Master[edit]

American-Idol-cruft; person didn't make it into top 12 in 3rd season. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also noticed that the AI season articles contain links to numerous semifinalists... might want to nom these too. --- RockMFR 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable American Idol contestant. JIP | Talk 06:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "who?" Guy (Help!) 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Season 3 article, as had been done with more recent contestants. Kirjtc2 15:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any way, so delete. --SunStar Net 21:54, 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 - consensus and relevancy of sources. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreline Christian Center[edit]

No notability asserted for this obscure Christian Center in Texas (although it assures us that "The growth of the church is growing rapidly".) wikipediatrix 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 03:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it has 6000 members, making it as notable as any of the high schools on Wikipedia. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It claims to have 6000 members. Big difference. (My family church still "claims" me as a member even though I literally have not attended since I was eight or nine. With many churches, simply being on their mailing list makes you a "member".) wikipediatrix 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also churches, however, which go the other way around, with many attendees not being members. And if it makes the claim, we probably should go with "innocent until proven guilty" and not assume they're lying, but check it out. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give unsourced claims the benefit of the doubt, especially in an article written with such POV. wikipediatrix 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The size of the church (unless backed up with sources demonstrating that this is somehow an unusual number) isn't a claim to notability vis a vis schools anyway. What makes a school notable - when it is - is a different set of criteria. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in view of this: [9], an independent, and non-local source. I they have seating of 5000, high on the source's list (and likely more than 1 service), that qualifies as a mega-church, and a keep. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should being a megachurch qualify as a keep? There are a lot of megachurches, do all of them deserve an article? Lurker ^oi! 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising tone, bare assertion of notability which is not near enough to pass WP:ORG. Source provided by Patstuart is about a sound system, coverage of the church is limited to "This sound system, that we're talking about, happens to be in this building", which is a trivial mention. Seraphimblade 04:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the source that Patstuart cites simply proves that the church exists. The fact that it exists doesn't make it notable, and neither I think does the fact that it's a megachurch - since there are lots of these. If it was shown to be the first, oldest, biggest or something else-ist Megachurch, then we'd be in business. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shameless 'vanispamcruftisement'. Badly written to boot: 'Shoreline Christian Center has nursery, children, youth place where they can get closer to their relationship with God.' — which is not only not English, but barely conforms with NPOV etc. Just make it go — could this not have been speedied? The Crying Orc 08:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enormous church is clearly notable, see this article. The article does need a rewrite, though Raffles mk 10:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that's a non-trivial thing, the article seems to be more about the general culture of the American South, rather than that specific church. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, this article seems to simply mention that the writer stopped at the church, it provides little information beyond that. Seraphimblade 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. a lot of churches are this size, something more is needed (such as influence outside the congregation) to show notability. Lurker ^oi! 11:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes no credible claim to being encyclopaedic, and the English is terrible. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNotable youth program per article in Time magazine I added to the article, as well as the Austin Times article previously cited. I left out a People magazine which was just a passing mention. Editors please note that you may edit the article if you find the phrasing is objectionable, and editing is preferred to deletion in such cases. Edison 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up a bit, though not a lot. But now if anybody has a problem, hopefully it won't be with the content. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new source isn't much better than the one about the American South. The only mention of this particular church is that there are 160 teenagers who attend, where previously there had been 80 (and the fact that the church didn't buy a pool table). It still seems pretty trivial to me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply nn. Eusebeus 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, big churches are neither rare nor unusual, no evidence of notability, no non-trivial press coverage or other reliable sources provided, leading to serious verifiability issues. Xtifr _tälk 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - illiterate, NN drivel. Pete Fenelon 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started a page on notability guidelines for local churches. You can join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations) Lurker ^oi! 11:58, 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 deletion as copyvio (G12) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Scary Door Dialog[edit]

Nomination for deletion Unencyclopedic, fancruft, wikipedia is not a transcript archive. So apparently its not enough to have articles on minor running gags in a cartoon series (see The Scary Door), but someone thinks separate articles are needed for the complete dialogue of the minor running gags. Isn't there a Futurama wiki out there?. Bwithh 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Never was there a more classic example of "Cruftcruft". wikipediatrix 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per copyright violation. A transcript of a television show is a violation, if I'm not mistaken. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but if that is the case but it it is you may want to consider taging the page for speedy deletion under G12. --64.229.74.25 01:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for an article on The Scary Door (much like Sick, Sad World, but this is ridiculous. -- Kicking222 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a catalogue of things you see at night after drinking whisky and eating cheese. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 08:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in the Futurama Wikiproject and even I think this is going too far. Stardust8212 14:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Kicking222--the The Scary Door article is sufficient for Wikipedia. Here's a Futurama Wiki--put the dialog in there (if it's not already) and then link to it on the Scary Door article. Dall ben 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have song lyrics and we don't have show transcripts either. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - changed my vote above.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occolo[edit]

A character from The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. I redirected to the game but that was reverted. Completely unfamiliar with game but strikes me as not-notable fancruft. I doubt this has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published reliable sources whose source is independent of promotion of the game. 16 google hits for game and character.[10].--Fuhghettaboutit 03:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft. Seraphimblade 05:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fujyuu 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. --64.229.74.25 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fancruft. Pete Fenelon 01:35, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Smeltzer[edit]

Prod removed without comment. Alleged controversial theorist who links String Theory to European History. Despite his controversial views and multiple honorary degrees, Google's never heard of him, or his alleged collaborators. Looks like total bollocks, but WP:HOAX isn't a speediable category. No sources provided, for obvious reasons. Fan-1967 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. --NMChico24 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, 16 ghits. MER-C 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author has removed the AFD tag from the article and attempted to blank this discussion. Fan-1967 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bollocks. The Crying Orc 09:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually heard of Ross Smeltzer. He was on the Today show last week. I find it pertinent, relevant, and worthy to be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.21.153 (talk • contribs)

Can you offer any explanation as to why he isn't mentioned anywhere on the Today Show website? They consistently list all their guests. Fan-1967 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Above IP also just removed the AFD tag from the article. Anyone recognize a pattern, here? Fan-1967 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IP's from the same ISP have removed the AFD tag. Looks like this is going to be one of those. It is nice, though, to get confirmation that it's a total hoax. Fan-1967 17:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he read every book in the Cornell library (currently over 8 000 000[11]) between age 6 and 14, he would have to be reading a book every 30 seconds, non-stop. Even if the collection were a lot smaller, this is definitely bollocks. PurpleRain 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one can read that fast. --NMChico24 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a hoax, and PurpleRain's logic above proves this. I can find no sources on the web, and there's no other sources to verify it, so it's a WP:HOAX. --SunStar Net 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has now dumped into the article all the external links from String theory and from European history. None of them, however, link the two subjects, or mention Ross Smeltzer. Author has also removed the AFD tag yet again. Fan-1967 22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unverifiable, in google or as far as I can see anywhere else. Incidentally, is not repeated deletion of AfD tags an offence for which blocking may be considered?--Anthony.bradbury 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The offender has been blocked for 24 hours. --NMChico24 00:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - highly entertaining article on someone who is clearly an utterly non-notable crank of the N'th order. Pete Fenelon 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Author has repeatedly removed AFD tag and blanked this discussion. Fan-1967 23:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disney 365[edit]

The article about Disney promotional material airing on its own network -- a non-notable program. the article fails to cite sources, or provide any form of verifability. A similar article was recently deleted through AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney 411 Whpq 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and purely promotional in nature. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 04:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom †he Bread 05:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entirely non-notable. Seraphimblade 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not need an unverified and unsourced article on a purely promotional program.-- danntm ^T _C 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Computerjoe 's talk 22:00, 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 15:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 24:36[edit]

I don't find this Bible verse culturally significant enough to warrant its own article - as opposed to, say, John 3:16. Most of the content is just reprinting of the verse in various translations. Crystallina 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for much the same reasons as above. The article on kenosis is (or should be) the place to bring this verse up, rather than its own page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BigHaz, since this doesn't look like it can really be expanded beyond its current (and spartan) version). Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 05:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I still don't think individual Bible verses are notable, especially with this little content. JIP | Talk 06:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete un-encyclopedic drivel. The Crying Orc 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. wikipediatrix 14:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gospel of Matthew. - Mig ^(Talk) 19:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Olivet discourse is probably a better target. Uncle G 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Doctrinal significance" is of enormous subjective import, but encyclopedias should be objective. --Masamage 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I accept that this may have been set up as a POV post, the idea thet "you do not know the day or the hour" is a fairly important one in Christian theology. 62,300 google hits. Even allowing for the large number of hits that would be attracted for any Bible verse (31,900 for the verse before and 24,400 for the verse after) that shows that there's quite a lot of significance. "The day or the hour" attracts 39,200 hits. JASpencer 23:16, 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 due to to RS problems and also some of the keep advocates seem to want to violate WP:NOT crystal ball, and some of them seem rather new. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktropolis[edit]

Only source for the article is the game itself, but because the game is down all of the information is unverifiable. Zero secondary sources, and google turns up nothing with information besides wiki mirrors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as web content that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Scienter 19:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I think we should wait until the game finally comes out. I assure you, this article will improve itself fast once the game comes back. --SpongeSebastian 03:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because some people may be changing it not really knowing what they are talking about. I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I think that we should wait until it comes out. --Frizzoloopa 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the information here is credible and the links provided are messages posted by one of the Nicktropolis creators himself on the Nick.com website. There has been the occasional 'bad info' posted here, but it's usually "cleaned up" quickly. 65.32.71.123 22:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.When it comes out, IF there is anything notable about it, and IF there are verifiable sources, THEN you can recreate it. Otherwise, please stop telling people to completely ignore policy simply becuase you like it. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this article to grow, it must not be deleted. If it is, nobody will discover about the game and nobody will think to improe this article as they do not know it exists nor that the game exists. If the article is given popularity, then it will be able to grow soon. The game comes out in only a month or two. Wait it out. If it does not come out by the end of January AND that there are no advertisements, etc. for a official release date, then you can delete it. jeremybelpois 22:01, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doodoocaca[edit]

Non-notable flash animation. Google search on terms "Doodoocaca Orilee" brings back only 77 unique on 1350 returns. No assertation of notability. Delete. MikeWazowski 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, tagged as such. Leibniz 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. I previously closed this as A7, but have assented to its undeletion. Let's let the AfD run its course. I am relisting it to adjust for the time lost. - crz crztalk 04:46, 21 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, - crz crztalk 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. As the article's author, I thought I'd done sufficient research before adding the entry. If it's really NN, so be it. I thought it had sufficient notable hits to warrant an article. - Lucky 6.9 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated --Cynicism addict 05:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A random Flash cartoon with no assertion of notability - seems like a fan wrote this. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. wikipediatrix 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How exactly did the undeletion conform to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy? Leibniz 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd undeleted it out of anger and Crzrussian felt it best to let the AfD run its full course. Seems pretty unanimous at this point. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 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 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shandi Sullivan[edit]

non-notable losing reality television show contestant. Nothing interesting after failing to win on the show. Mikeblas 04:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent, as cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayla Rubinelli. Xtifr _tälk 13:05, 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 Speedied, A7 Opabinia regalis 05:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Hype[edit]

Non-notable blog; has existed for about a week, no hope of meeting WP:WEB. Prod removed by author, listing here. --keepsleeping slack off! 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as web content that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:30, 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 - crz crztalk 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall at Short Hills[edit]

Non-notable mall. I don't think there's criteria for a mall being notable, but nothing I can think of applying makes me think this article should stay here. I asked for an assertion of notability (in response to a plea to not delete the article, in fact) on the talk page, but nothing happened. I don't think the building is architecturally special, a trend-setter in any way, or anyhting else that makes is stick out among the zillions of other shopping centers in the US. Mikeblas 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G11, store list gives very promotional tone, else delete as non-notable shopping mall. Seraphimblade 05:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above. MER-C 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep and clean up. As malls go, this one is fairly notable as a major upscale shopping center for people who ~~are too snobby to mingle with the masses~~ can't be bothered going into NYC. Opabinia regalis 05:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to precedents involving other malls. This is one of the larger malls in New Jersey (see Shopping malls in New Jersey) -- not the largest, but Wikipedia has articles about numerous malls smaller than this one. --Metropolitan90 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. How do we know those other articles shouldn't be deleted, too? After all, we can't delete every undesirable article with one single AfD. -- Mikeblas 15:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references, including an article from the New York Times. The mall differs from most other malls because it successfully targets the high end of the market. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will agree with Seraphimblade that the tone can be more encyclopedic and I've never appreciated the store directories in mall articles. However, it is one of the largest in New Jersey, a state that has made many major advances in the field, to our everlasting detriment. The sourced material added to the article demonstrates notability. Alansohn 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Disclosure: I live about six-eight miles from this mall, but I never go to it, because I'm not made of money. My keep !vote is based on personal knowledge, even though I don't actually like the mall in question.) Short Hills Mall is, as I see it, highly notable as far as malls go. It's a mall for (generally) rich people in one of the richest towns in the country. The square footage of the mall is gigantic, as is the sheer number of stores. I know people who have gone out of their way on trips to NYC so they could stop at the Short Hills Mall. This isn't the most convincing (or rational) argument ever, but that's where I stand. I did a tiny bit of poking around, and "The Mall at Short Hills" gets 14 Google News hits (most, such as this one, on an experimental members' lounge American Express has just installed in the mall) and 25,000 Google hits, including 658 uniques out of the first 1,000. -- Kicking222 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE We have articles on malls now? I thought this was an encyclopedia. Well, I gotta go write an article on the leftovers in my fridge now and see how many spoiled foods in there have articles I can link to. MiracleMat 10:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is sourced, it's verifiable and it's encyclopedic. We don't just delete articles using "I can't believe we have an article on X", we refer to Wikipedia policies. If you can get The New York Times to write a few articles over a period of decades on your refrigerator detritus and you too could make an excellent case for retention. If you could point to a policy or a guideline that this article violates I'd be more than happy to emend the article or update my vote. Alansohn 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per verified claim of notability. P.S. we need a standard for which malls are notable. Clearly the neighborhood strip mall isn't. Clearly some malls are. I wish we could just cite a bright-line standard. Someone please delete the store list. I expect to see a "You are here" arrow. If there are excessivle promotional or POV parts, they can be edited out.Edison 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't necessarily agree with deleting the store list (or, at least, not the entire list) for this nor any other mall. I think a store list helps to identify a mall; after all, a mall is just a bunch of stores. Perhaps narrowing down the list to only the most notable stores, or only stores with WP articles, would be a better idea. -- Kicking222 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's actually not "clear" to me that some malls are notable. I'm not sure how a particular JC Pennys store is any more or less notable than any of hundreds of other JC Pennnys. The building itself? Maybe for its architecture or history. Otherwise, certainly not notable. -- Mikeblas 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, referenced, etc... --- RockMFR 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep and clean up per Opabinia regalis. The claims to notability seem borderline but plausible. The references are good, albeit limited. I thought about trying to apply WP:CORP (which it would probably fail), but the article is really about the mall, not the company that owns the mall. I suspect that malls, in general, should probably be considered a form of landmark (landmarks are often privately owned), and while we don't have any specific guidelines for notability of landmarks that I've seen, I think the general notability guidelines about independent non-trivial reliable source coverage may be sufficient, and by that measure, this may just barely squeeze by. Xtifr _tälk 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to democratize the whole encyclopedia experience so articles exactly like one on (what very possibly may be a bland) New Jersey mall are available. The arguments for "delete" seem to reek of condescension, and this is the very reason why "everyday" people avoid encyclopedias....because they are not relevant to their everyday lives. Removing articles simply because SOME people deem their subjects "non-noteworthy" means fewer people will use, contribute and care about Wikipedia and also creates a slippery slope where noteworthiness is subject to the judgement of a select few. What's notable to some may not be notable to others. whoasuckaa 11:54, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Keep. There are 32 malls in New Jersey with wikipedia pages. Why not delete all of them? We don't delete them because this is supposed to be an encyclopia of as much information as possible. The Mall at Short Hills attracts over a million shoppers year-round, so I am positive that people have gone on Wikipedia and looked up this mall to find out more about it. It truly does not make any sense to delete this article, other than one person's opinion that it is not note-worthy. prepper2 2:57, 25 November 2006 (EST)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:12, 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 Delete - crz crztalk 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Al Asalli[edit]

Prodded as "Non-notable individual. Claims notability, but the name (and Google's suggested spelling, "Nasser Al Asali") receives no hits at all and the article does not provide any sources or name any notable appearances by this individual.", prod tag removed by anon. Taking this to AfD as original nominator for deletion. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 05:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like a hoax. At any rate, there are no cited sources and no relevant Google hits. --Metropolitan90 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Given the lack of sources and google hits, combined with the age of the subject, likely schoolboy fantasy. Fan-1967 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mildly amusing hoax. For related gossip, read about his supposed girlfriend Maryam Al Khalifa. Stammer 13:44, 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 Overwhlmingly delete - no scoking please. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Season 2 (US)[edit]

As per the other game show nominations: 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 is Right, Wikipedia would be flooded with useless information such as Bob Barker wore a brown suit and so on. RobJ1981 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. MER-C 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Movementarian (Talk) 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and the reason I stated in the season 1 nomination. TJ Spyke 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Keep -- all other series have episode guides, and this one is no exception. -- azumanga 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it!!!! -- for the same reason.
NO DEAL! -- Wikipedia has many guides, and why remove one that has a huge fan following? Besides, so many important details about the show are in this guide! I have also contributed heavily to this page. Andrewb1 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnsourced original research going into painfully too much detail. It is appropriate to have one article for a game show, and inappropriate to write up what color clothing everyone wore in every episode. The Price is Right has been on 50 years, and only has one article for each reincarnation of the show (different format, different host).Edison 18:39, 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.
- Move content (or rewrite it) to [TVIV wiki]. Again, the same standard would apply.

All this counts as just one vote. [[Briguy52748 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep. I don't think we should differentiate between game shows and sitcoms and reality shows, etc. A season episode guide for a very notable show should certainly be kept. --- RockMFR 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVE.--Angllues 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough decision: I like the list, but it's "no deal" when listing in Wikipedia - therefore, delete per nom, and possibly move to the TVIV wiki. Big top 00:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons of notability and similarity to other episode articles, per my entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal, Season 1 (US). A move of the two episode articles to the TVIV wiki would be an acceptable compromise for me, because we could still include links to the material in the main Deal or No Deal (US game show) article. At any rate, I ask whoever closes the AfD to make sure that the material in both episode articles is available for moving to the TVIV wiki if the final decision is to delete them from Wikipedia. Thanks. Casey Abell 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. Bscottbrown 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look good. Zarbat 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Game shows don't have "episodes". A transwiki per Casey Abell is not unreasonable if TVIV licensing is compatible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think the question, then, should be whether TVIV licensing is compatible (it isn't; I've edited there and had to essentially create "new" descriptions for episodes that exist elsewhere on non-public domain sites including Wikipedia), but whether someone should place episode information there (hence the "rewrite" suggestion that is included among my two suggestions). [[Briguy52748 22:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Strong delete. This kind of excreta is either a parody or the product of minds with an unbounded tolerance for unencyclopedic drivel. Pete Fenelon 01:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -AMK152 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An episode guide has been started at TVIV.org. Even if the result is to delete, this new episode guide will help fit the bill. Thanks! [[Briguy52748 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete Terrible amount of needless information, wikipedia does not need plot summaries to a gameshow. Mallocks 14:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bunch of silly trivia about the episodes, and poorly written at that. If such a page were to exist, do it right, and have the player, their final deal, what was in their case, and any 'notable' events. What the models wore is not notable. 63.226.222.154 07:56, 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. This was a tough one to call. However, it appears that consensus and strength of argument lean towards deletion. If someone starts up a Deal or No Deal wiki, I'll give them the information. Yanksox 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Series 1 (UK)[edit]

Similar to the other Deal or No Deal lists I've put up: fancruft at best. Lists of gameshow episodes aren't needed here. RobJ1981 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. MER-C 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Movementarian (Talk) 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnsourced original research going into painfully too much detail. It is appropriate to have one article for a game show, and inappropriate to write up what color clothing everyone wore in every episode. The Price is Right has been on 50 years, and only has one article for each reincarnation of the show (different format, different host).Edison 18:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. This article includes records from the series - records which would make both the main Deal or No Deal UK article and the UK game show records article, far too full. This is also a very useful resource that a lot of people, myself included, use and update regularly. Cipher ^(Yell) 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should differentiate between game shows and sitcoms and reality shows, etc. A season episode guide for a very notable show should certainly be kept. --- RockMFR 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete talk about cruft... Computerjoe 's talk 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVE.--Angllues 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zarbat 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has existed since April with no objections, and is the only list of its kind on the internet, many of which finding it a useful source. Does not go into trivial details, simply lists very brief summaries of each game, and considering it covers 66 episodes is fairly short an article. Billy H 19:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Mer-C, Edison. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a show built around statistics, any article claiming to be an information resource on it should include summaries in some form - see the commercially available book, which lists similar data. Elcondor 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 144.32.128.68 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep as per my comments for series 3. Triangle e 13:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete this crud, along with all these 'episode guides' for gameshows. Nothing of note happens in them. Pete Fenelon 01:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is the case that this is the most complete listing of the statistics available on the internet then that surely brings up problems with verifiability. Having said that I don't think that attacks like yours Pete are actually neccesary, a simple "Delete" gets across the same point without the same violence of opinion. Mallocks 10:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The stats are verifiable from a number of sites linked from the main show article. They are generally available within show reports etc, whereas this contains a concise one-line summary of each game. --90.240.134.213 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The UK listings are in an entirely different format to the US season nominated above, they should certainly not be directly compared. 86.20.30.144 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cipher, this article can be a useful resource for people. bbx 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. We're not a TV guide, and an episode list for a game show is just... insane. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 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. I am guided by the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal, Series 1 (UK); it indeed matches my own findings here. Personal utility is not grounds for inclusion. Also, it appears that the material has been moved offsite, so all needs are met. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Series 2 (UK)[edit]

Similar to the other Deal or No Deal lists I've put up: fancruft at best. Lists of gameshow episodes aren't needed here. Below is series 3, but I did something wrong? Not sure what's going on, hopefully someone can fix it. It should be the 2nd nomination for that. RobJ1981 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. (And I've fixed the second nomination for you.) MER-C 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Movementarian (Talk) 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnsourced original research going into painfully too much detail. It is appropriate to have one article for a game show, and inappropriate to write up what color clothing everyone wore in every episode. The Price is Right has been on 50 years, and only has one article for each reincarnation of the show (different format, different host).Edison 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. This article includes records from the series - records which would make both the main Deal or No Deal UK article and the UK game show records article, far too full. This is also a very useful resource that a lot of people, myself included, use and update regularly. Cipher ^(Yell) 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should differentiate between game shows and sitcoms and reality shows, etc. A season episode guide for a very notable show should certainly be kept. --- RockMFR 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft Computerjoe 's talk 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVE.--Angllues 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - it's a very useful source of information, which many people find very useful. I respect your "rules", but the pages are causing no harm by their presence. L1v3rp00l 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has existed since March with no objections, and is the only list of its kind on the internet, many of which finding it a useful source. Does not go into trivial details, simply lists very brief summaries of each game, and considering it covers 219 episodes is fairly short an article. Billy H 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Edison and Mer-C. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comment for Series 3--Oli 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comment for Series 1-- Elcondor 08:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep as per my comments for series 3. Triangle e 13:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly and totally strong and speedy delete and sow the ruins with salt - unencyclopedic dross Pete Fenelon 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would suggest you tone down the innapropriate use of language there. A simple 'delete' would do the trick. wakey1512 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as in Series 1. Having an article existing for several months without objection isn't in itself a reason to keep it BillyH. Mallocks 10:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of fans of Deal Or No Deal appreciate the statistical aspects of the show as its a game of mathematical chance and that is part of the appeal of the show. It is important to have a public record of the statistics of each show freely available on the Internet. Rico7 19.33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Cipher, this article can be a useful resource for people. bbx 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per to what I said in Series 3, this resource is far from 'crud' and is a healthy resource for not just fans of the show, but for people who may have missed a certain episode, or for reference. Keep per WP:TVE. wakey1512 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. We're not a TV guide, and an episode list for a game show is just... insane. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who wish to preserve these pages outside of Wikipedia, I have placed versions on http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Deal_or_No_Deal_UK - I have no interest in maintaining a full wiki for these, but someone might Elcondor 21:13, 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. I am guided by the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal, Series 1 (UK); it indeed matches my own findings here. Personal utility is not grounds for inclusion. Also, it appears that the material has been moved offsite, so all needs are met. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal, Series 3 (UK) (2nd nomination)[edit]

Procedural listing, AFD was not completed correctly due to conflict with previous nomination. Several similar articles are available on AFD for an overview of orignal nominator's position. Serpent's Choice 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. MER-C 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Movementarian (Talk) 06:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TJ Spyke 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe that this article has been nominated for deletion. I've even got it bookmarked so that I can keep track with the events of the show. Triangle e 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUnsourced original research going into painfully too much detail. It is appropriate to have one article for a game show, and inappropriate to write up what color clothing everyone wore in every episode. The Price is Right has been on 50 years, and only has one article for each reincarnation of the show (different format, different host).Edison 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. This article includes records from the series - records which would make both the main Deal or No Deal UK article and the UK game show records article, far too full. This is also a very useful resource that a lot of people, myself included, use and update regularly. Cipher ^(Yell) 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, Cipher. It's not as trivial as "what colour shirt" they're wearing. This show has a cult following and this information is drawn on and mentioned throughout the show's run. Things like "what box number contains which value" and "since when the 1p has been won" are subjects that have consistantly been brought up during the show. The fact that so many people have contributed to this article is surely evidence of how useful this page is. Triangle e 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information is very useful to a fan but it is not encyclopedical. This data before deletion could be transfered to a fan website, and a link put on the DOND UK article and updated that way PrincessBrat 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should differentiate between game shows and sitcoms and reality shows, etc. A season episode guide for a very notable show should certainly be kept. --- RockMFR 19:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This place is useful record of events on a very popular program, and serves as an excellent reference. I find it extremely useful if I miss a program and want to see what happened. This might sound as if I'm worryingly addicted but my opinion still counts!--Oli 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but this (along with similar articles) is not encyclopaedic. Computerjoe 's talk 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVE.--Angllues 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'll withhold my vote for now. WP:TVE appears to support this article, and others are just linking me to WP:NOT#INFO but until anyone can provide a quote from this that appears to edict this page; I believe keeping it. --Hydrostatics 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, but delete 'Trvia' section The former is a concise television summary, the latter is fancruft.

It MUST be Kept The Deal or No Deal games are so wrapped around each others games and the contestants that it only seems right to have a log of all the games on Wikipedia. If I ever miss a game, I come straight here to see what the game was like. If you're that bothered by it, delete some of the less important footnotes. Platypus3005, 19:07 22 November

Strongly Keep Very useful source of reference, with frequent contributions and updates. This isn't like any other game show, and its statistical records are as worthwhile as those of sports etc. 84.65.114.231 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Series 2 article has existed since March with no objections until now, is the only list of its kind on the internet, many of which finding it a useful source. Does not go into trivial details, simply lists very brief summaries of each game, and considering it covers over 20 episodes is fairly short an article. Billy H 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is NOT the only list of its kind. Bother's Bar, ScrewTheBanker and DondUK BlogSpot all have similar; if not better; reports. -Hydrostatics 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No other site contains such a concise and easy to read summary of each game. --84.65.114.231 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Hugely informative for everyone. As said above, the page is the only extensive source on the internet regarding the subject. Strongly disagree with deletion. wakey1512 19:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep as voted on the series 2 page. I am strongly in favour of keeping these pages as they are of great use to many people, and the same information cannot be found arranged as coherently as it is here. L1v3rp00l 21:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for others: indiscriminate and excessive collection of WP:NOTalicious trivia which is in no sense an "episode guide". Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, consider move. Each line is a concise plot summary of a single episode, consistent with the spirit of WP:TVE. The television broadcast is a primary source, valid per the accepted definition of original research. Notability of each broadcast is inferred from the (relatively) large audience for the programme, per main article. Ideally, this information would be included in the main Deal or No Deal (UK) article, and it may be better as a subpage. Eludium-q36 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my comment for Series 1-- Elcondor 08:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful article to me, I enjoy going back over the previous episodes and having the record of results, seems relatively appropriate for an online encyclopedia (which is, after all, able to keep current data on subjects in a way that printed encyclopedias aren't able to). === Jez === 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fantastic reference for all interested in the stats of the show. I refer to the articles on each of the series 1-3 quite often. DannyIndigo 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Elizabeth told Noel that she and her friend Mandy were inseparable as they had known each other since they were 12 years old." is cruft. ArmAndLeg 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well get rid of the footnotes if you like, and just keep the table of episode summaries. --84.66.143.37 18:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TVE. Also verifiable and no original research. Railwayman 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per Series 1 & 2 and the US series. Can these monomaniacs take this crud somewhere else? Pete Fenelon 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is it that wikipedia says about personal attacks again? Triangle e 12:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No personal attacks please, or you lose all credibility. 28/11/06 Martinyearly

STONGLY KEEP As stated above, this is a fantastic reference for all interested in the stats of deal or no deal. It isn't hurting anyone to keep this information here. 28/11/06 Martinyearly

Delete per nom and above. We're not a TV guide, and an episode list for a game show is just... insane. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia IS a TV guide - witness all the pages for stuff like Doctor Who and Star Trek. Deal or No Deal is NOT your average "game-show", and that more than anything else seems the hub of this question - does it deserve the same respect as other TV shows on wikipedia? A small but vocal group of people seem to think it doesn't. Fans of the series are already storing this information to host it elsewhere on dedicated DonD sites. It looks like the fans have lost, but as far as I'm concerned it is wikipedia who are the losers as this IS important information for many, even just casual viewers and not hardcore fans. These are (were) the best presented stats and episode guides on the internet. I'm quite disappointed in this decision. 88.104.207.7 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who wish to preserve these pages outside of Wikipedia, I have placed versions on http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Deal_or_No_Deal_UK - I have no interest in maintaining a full wiki for these, but someone might Elcondor 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They've deleted the page for series 1 so it looks like that we've lost. What a complete and utter disaster. Wikipedia: the least reliable source on the net. Triangle e 22:51, 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 both articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher-John Tomasevich[edit]

Christopher-John Tomasevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also nominated: Gabriel Abreu

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

This article was previously submitted for proposed deletion due to possible hoax content, but the proposed deletion was challenged and the most implausible material was removed. Nevertheless, even if everything in this article is true, it has insufficient reliable sources as the only source listed is the subject's journal, without even any indication that it has been published. Furthermore, the subject's only claim to notability is as a soldier killed in the American Civil War, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died in the Civil War. I am also nominating Gabriel Abreu which has not gone through proposed deletion but has similar problems with sources and notability. I recommend that both be deleted. --Metropolitan90 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete both per nom. No ghits for the first at all, nor any as a civil war soldier for the second, no sources for either. Author User:RPS436 (edit | [[Talk:User:RPS436|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a history of nonsense edits. Tubezone 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per above. MER-C 06:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both unsourced original research.( Also take a look at the creating editor's other contributions.) Edison 18:50, 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 speedy delete as below by Grutness. MER-C 07:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Sin Yuk-Do (2nd nomination)[edit]

Jung Sin Yuk-Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jung Sin Yuk-Do

No case made for notability Peter Rehse 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a repost of previously deleted material. (aeropagitica) 05:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. Otherwise 5 non-wiki ghits, zero verifiability. MER-C 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as such. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - crz crztalk 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Miguel[edit]

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

Pure, blatant spam for a non-notable musician. -- RHaworth 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC by a mile, should have been prodded. Someone really needs to write a bot that automatically prods any article with "up-and-coming" or "rising star" in it. ;) Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. MySpace-pose photos seal the deal. Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 07:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim per WP:MUSIC. Has been speedied, {{notability}}'ed, discussed, speedied again, prodded. No claim of notability has surfaced. Weregerbil 08:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Scienter 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like attempts to speedy delete per A7 didn't work, but it needs to go. --Masamage 02:11, 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 - it can be recreated if sources are ever located. Yomangani ^talk 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machado-Squires Symbiosis[edit]

Nomination for deletion Suspected hoax. Fails WP:V. Can't find supporting evidence on google, google books, google scholar etc. In the original version of the article[12], supposed Symbiosis journal wikilink in article actually leads to an Indian media school which uses "Symbiosis" as its corporate brand name and not as an indicator of scientific field[13]. This problematic link was removed some time after afd began. New version of the article claims that the Arts Council England published the first paper classifying the supposed phenomenon, but this organization does not publish academic papers of this sort - its largely an organization for distributing lottery money to arts organizations. Bwithh 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (Updated) Bwithh 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not it's a hoax, it remains a highfalutin' neologism for a perfectly commonplace phenomenon that really doesn't need such a name, and ain't really symbiosis either. This makes it complete bollocks in my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relative merit of the term should not be confused with the merit of the article. There are, I'm sure, quite a few things in the world that make little or no sense, and exist nevertheless. My impression is that MS-Symbiosis is more a pretentious term of convenience (albeit an inconvenient one) than a real "phenomenon," but that's my only real complaint about this article. - Arrachface 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — User:Arrachface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Update I'm copying comment below from article talk page made by article creator Bwithh 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comment from User:Runhobbit, the article creator — User:Runhobbit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :

While the subject is a relatively obscure analysis of epistolary collaborations in history, the article itself has been referenced in several subsequent articles and was a covered topic at a recent Literary Arts Symposium. I am attempting to find verifiable sources, but there simply isn't anything of this precision available outside of literary journals.

Above comment copied here from article talk page by Bwithh 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Arrachface/User:Runhobbit, I suggest you look at Wikipedia's policy on verification. Bwithh 22:21, 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 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KJ[edit]

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

WP:MUSIC - crz crztalk 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems rather prolific but doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC. His albums appear to be produced by his own record label, Voic Chic Records (note the copyright "KJ & Company, Inc." Movementarian (Talk) 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 07:31, 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:Speedily deleted as nonsense. Supposedly a definition of a slang term, but "it is an uncomenly used name". - Mike Rosoft 07:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay hops[edit]

Semi nonsensical Bio piece, no context, poorly written, fails G7, A1, A3, and A7 - note the name of the creator is also the name of the page SkierRMH 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef combined with a self-admitted vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. definition, non-notable neologism, and borderline nonsense. Probably could have been prodded. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and above comments; from the start it seems like there is just no way to get anything remotely verifiable and it's definitely vanity. —K e akealani 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article author himself asserts non-notability. Danny Lilithborne 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - CSD A7 as it seems to be primarily about the person. So tagged. MER-C 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the article was originally tagged as a speedy, moved to prod after the speedy was rejected, and then the prod was rejected so a full AfD was required. I highly doubt that the speedy will be honoured now more than it was when the article was first written. —K e akealani 07:53, 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: Nomination withdrawn, after references were added to the article. Consensus is to Keep. --Elonka 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Bondi Junction[edit]

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

Contested prod: another Australian shopping mall article, with no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per article criterion 7: An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to Weak Keep: article is coming along somewhat, now asserts notability (and has a reference for the assertion). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concern has been met. MER-C 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and sanction nominator. This is one of the largest, most upscale, and most notable shopping centres in Australia, not to mention one of the flagship Westfield centres. This tactic of nominating every shopping centre for deletion regardless of its notablility (or when one has absolutely no clue how notable something is, and has made absolutely no effort to find out) is getting very old, and IMO, is verging on disruption. Rebecca 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article contradicts WP:NOT#DIR and WP:LOCAL. Todd661 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep edits by Canley have made it worth saving. It is such a pity that it took an AfD for it to be salvaged. Todd661 08:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This artcile has been substantially rewritten by myself although I forgot to sign in so I can't get the credit :(. I think now it is definatley worth saving.

Strong Delete No malls! Not notable. Besdies ,there's no article to read! buh-bye MiracleMat 10:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ Conditional weak keep on the basis that it is cleaned up, and referenced. Otherwise Merge and redirect whatever is salvagable to Bondi Junction, New South Wales. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, and sanction nominator as per Rebecca. Bondi Junction is now one of the biggest shopping centres in Australia and to say it is not notable is utterly ridiculous. The nominator has consistently nominated other things knowing well that they are notable (like railway stations, railway lines, etc.) JROBBO 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how ridiculous this nomination is - a Google search brings up about 51000 articles, when I take out all WP references and Westfield self references. I did a Factiva newspaper search and got 1500 articles on there as well. How could anyone nominate this for deletion? JROBBO 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease take a step back and cool off for a moment. We do not need threats of unspecified sanctions in place of reasoned discussion. Assume good faith. Any article needs a claim of notability and reliable independent sources to back it up. This article could be improved in those two ways. Edison 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Rebecca. (Sanctions seem a bit harsh though...) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to The Age this is Westfield's most financially successful shopping centre [14]. Come on guys, this is getting tiresome: there is no rule or policy about large shopping centres/malls not being notable - just WP:AFDP which says that their notability is disputed. There is clear support in WikiProject Australia to keep such articles, and I wish people would use cleanup tags or actually discuss the matter with users who would have a better idea of notability rather than swatting every questionable article they see with deletion tags. --Canley 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it troublesome that multiple users are expressing frustration about Elonka's nomination, insisting on the notability of the mall, and have yet to add any assertion of notability to the article. Rebecca, in particular, would do well to actually spend time working on the article and cease making bad faith assumptions and calling for sanctions against Elonka. As of this post, there aren't even any sourceless notability assertions, much less one with a reference attached to it. Thus, the article still should be speedy deleted per CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did add a cited reference stating that this was Westfield's newest and largest centre - I haven't even added the ref above yet ("unparalleled financial success"). I partly agree though: Rebecca, can you stop just reverting any tags Elonka adds and calling for sanctions? She's right, these articles need work. My frustrations, by the way, were more aimed at the "Blam! Blam! Kill all malls!!!" type comments, not so much Elonka. --Canley 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reverting all of Elonka's tags. I'm keeping those that actually warrant it, such as the local interest tags for malls that are actually of only local interest, and not those, such as this, which are patently not, and which Elonka did not bother to find out about. I also stand by calling for sanctions - I'm fed up with having to spend so much time defending articles like this from guerrilla deletion tactics (speedy, then prod, then AfD), when if anything, all they need is a bit of cleanup and expansion. Rebecca 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then might I suggest that in the future, you simply leave the {{local}} or reference tags on the article, replace them with something more to your liking, or even take the time to actually add a reference, rather than simply reverting? [15][16][17][18]. --Elonka 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteIt being Westfield's largest is not inherently notable. The strip mall down the street is the largest owned by its owner, and it is really small. It is up to the creaters of an article and those who wish to keep it to make a claim of notability and to support it with verifiable and reliable sources, not to all other editors. The article had one from the Economist which was a directory type paragraph listing which said it was there and had a lot of stores, as do many other shopping centers. The other citation told of digging a big hole in the ground, as is customary when building something. The newest cite says the owner has made a hunk of money. Still not that superlative or notable. Please do not threaten editors with sanctions if they nominate articles which could benefit from re-writing or added citations. We really need a guideline to separate the notable from the non-notable shopping mall. Edison 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I just ask, what sort of information would change your mind here? I mean, what (verifiable) sentence in the intro would make you think "yes, this mall/centre is notable"? I realise it is up to creators and keepers to verify and assert notability, but it's not easy when such attempts or references are dismissed out of hand (the references, by the way, were for the figures, not to back up superlative claims). I definitely agree we need a guideline on this. However, Westfield of course is not just "the guy down the road", you are surely aware of how many centres they own, so I think this is a fallacious dismissal of a sound claim to notability. This is like saying, "this is Australia's largest shopping centre, but Papua New Guinea's largest shopping centre is tiny, so Australia's largest is therefore not notable".--Canley 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell, if the mall is distinguished from all other malls in the country by its size, architecture, splendor of its stores, or unique features, that would probably do it for me. Mall of America comes to mind:"the largest shopping mall in total area in the United States when it opened in 1992."See alsoWater Tower Place which is notable as a skyscraper mall which has had a profound influence for 30 years. The largest malls in the largest cities of a country might be notable. Meridian Mall in a suburb of Lansing Michigan, the state capital, stayed. Lansing Mall, the second largets, got deleted. I might have kept it. I would not have kept the 3rd, 4th, 5th etc in the Lansing area. Also the ritziest malls in the largest cities. Do people all over the country talk about visiting the mall if they are ever in the town? Do people take bus trips for a long distance just to visit the mall? Or is it just the place you go to buy a shirt at J.C Penney's? Saying it is "Westfield's largest mall" is like saying it is "Joe Doe's largest mall" because it assumes we think Westfield is inherently important. Identifying it as "the largest mall in Xville" begs the question of the significance of Xville, for people in other continents. Bondi may be notable, but the article read very similarly to innumerable writeups of utterly unmemorable malls. The intro still just says it is Westfield's largest, not the world's largest or the country's largest. Maybe it could be revised to highlight the notability of Bondi. Edison 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The discussion here seems to raise the inadequacy of what we all mean by notable. Different people think some things are notable (or not) and others think the reverse. For example I find High Schools and large Shopping Centres to be notable, while I think most railway stations and roads are completely unnotable, yet there there appears to be little objection to keeping these. I also find villages to be notable even though they are often smaller than Schools and Shopping Centres. Perhaps for now we should move to be more inclusionist in all these areas, so I favour keep here. --Bduke 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Westfield Bondi Junction is a large and important shopping complex, and deserves to stay here. I agree with Rebecca. --Whats new? 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News Archives gets 121 results see [19]. It might be a good idea if nominators could look for sources or ask the views of relevant Wikipedians such as Australian Wikipedians notice board before making a nomination. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the editor who wrote the article should do this. Vegaswikian 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of all The Westfield Group outlets in Australia, The Junger is actually notable - it is the only one which has Australia's only outlet for several US-based retail chains. BTW: My proposal to merge all Westfields in Australia to a single article was months ago - and didn't have legs then I don't see what's changed since! Ga rr ie 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is the responsiblity of the editor to show verifiablilty, notability, etc. Tagging it for improvement and then waiting a reasonable time would be polite though. Everyone who is attacking someone for kicking off an AfD debate, calm down. Personally I would delete every other shopping centre in Australia article before this one, but that doesn't mean proposing this one be deleted is outright wrong. Ga rr ie 04:27, 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, one of many similar articles created by a single purpose account, all of which (quite by coincidence) are run by the same property company. Imagine that. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Hills Mall[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable shopping mall, with no references affirming notability per WP:CORP. --Elonka 06:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD A7. By WP:CORP, we would have to look at the company that owns the mall, General Growth Properties. They obviously meet the criteria, so that reason won't do. This particular article, however, gives no information as to how the mall is notable. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major shopping mall, seemingly widely notable, at least by its size. Rebecca 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I'm on an anti-mall rampage tonight because is supposed to be an encyclopedia MiracleMat 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to asssert notability. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article presents zero independent sources such as newspaper or magazine articles to show notability. It does not claim anything extraordinary about it, and does not even state the size, the total annual revenue, or other possible indices of notability for malls. It just says it is in a certain town and has certain stores. Edison 19:17, 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 Speedy deleted -- Longhair\^talk 07:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen-Hafen Power Station[edit]

Bremen-Hafen Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable power station. No references of any kind, or indication of notability per WP:CORP. Previous attempts at speedy deletion and prod were unsuccessful. --Elonka 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. After stripping it down to a single sentence due to lack of sources, it now fails to assert notability (CSD A7). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Movementarian (Talk) 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7, no notability assertion in either original or current form. Seraphimblade 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Also zero ghits. So tagged. MER-C 07:36, 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 bite the dust. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities in Dust (band)[edit]

Cities in Dust (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-21 07:37Z

Delete -- unless a better reference than a MySpace link can be found. -- Longhair\^talk 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hamilton Music Awards win approaches meeting WP:MUSIC but falls short (not a notable award). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Glorified Garage band test. SkierRMH,10:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND. shotwell 12:50, 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 no consensus, default to keep. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Mukerji[edit]

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

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-21 07:38Z

Delete, nn lobbyist, intern and grad student. Hornplease 09:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn person, as per nom.... SkierRMH,10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "per Hornplease"? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-21 11:46Z

Keep coverage looks good. - crz crztalk 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of press; the kid is apparently a multimillionaire. talk 22:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)— PortugueseSensation2134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs section backs notabilityBakaman _Bakatalk 03:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Convincing references forced me to say so . Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the simple presence of references causes notability. Hornplease 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless toned down. Notability and sources too feeble to support this puff piece. ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to Hong Kong[edit]

Immigration to Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a how-to; also, there are some serious copyright concerns with regards to this article. humblefool ® 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure it is still copyrightvio. Delete delete delete........ I support Humblefool. Eradicate all inferior Chinamen topics.70.52.74.207 00:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inferior yellow men from Hong Kong has no right to write down anything about superior race of British matter. I support you Humblefool. (Taiwanese)70.52.74.207 19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think racism has anything to do with this article. --humblefool ® 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Precedent for these kinds of articles exists with Immigration to the United States, Immigration to Germany, et cetera. The current article doesn't appear to be a how-to; it provides factual information and some history of immigration policy in Hong Kong. Also, I didn't search very hard but couldn't find the copyvio problem. Do you have a URL for the page from where it was ripped? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 07:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[20] is taken to form the Immigration Control on British Citizens in HK section (though the user disputes that this is actual infringement; I think that the license is a "wholly intact" type that clashes with the GFDL, but IANA copyright lawyer) --humblefool ® 08:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it can be cleaned up, expanded and de-copyvioed then there is plenty of precedent for this on Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 10:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Similar edition can be found on the topic of HKSAR passport that is also mainly taken from the web site you wrote down above. Why didn't you add AfD for this article? your explanation is not good enough, Humblefool. This art. is freely copied and under certain circumstances one may need to ask for permission from HKIMMD, e.g. commercial usage if you pay attention to the the copyright note on that site; it is clearly stated. For our editors online, our motivation on wikipedia are basically voluntary edition without charge and not for selling so that this is not for commercial usage. However, if wiki wanted to use this content for commercial usage, then it is the discretion of wikipedia (i.e. wiki can choose this topic whether for such commercial purpose or not). Guia Hill 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Anything used on Wikipedia has to be available for commercial use. As the IMMD forbids this, the article contents are a clear copyvio. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously. If there are problems, fix the problems, but as such the article is consistent with what there is for other topics. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Simões. Similar existing articles justifies the existence of this article, and especially since immigration of mainland Chinese to HK is a hot topic in HK. But the article needs to be cleaned up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful information to Politics of Hong Kong or otherwise delete. Zarbat 05:12, 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 wasno consensus. JYolkowski // talk 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Bible College[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement. Up until a couple of days ago, the page looked like this, which should clear up any doubts that the article is a platform for self-promotion. Despite all the self-glorification etc., no claims to notability... The Crying Orc 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the revised article looks acceptable; content similar to other articles at List of bible colleges. -- MightyWarrior 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was ad, now is non-notable. Only school's own website cited. Don't see how this one would (even come close) to passing WP:CORP. Seraphimblade 12:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD A7. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MightyWarrior. Agent 86 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Seraphimblade, no signs of notability whatsoever. Mightwarrior's argument fails WP:INN. Xtifr _tälk 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But note that WP:INN is not a guideline or policy - see Inclusionism for the opposite pov. -- MightyWarrior 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:INN is a logical extension of every guideline and policy. "Someone else got away with reverting 4 times once" will not keep you from getting blocked on 3RR. "Someone else made a personal attack once and didn't get in trouble" doesn't mean you won't. "An ad article once didn't get deleted for a full 3 months" doesn't mean we must keep all ad articles for a minimum 3-month period. So what would make this one different, to where "Someone else got away with it" applies? Seraphimblade 04:12, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPde[edit]

Non-notable small and now defunct project that never got any real attention. Memmke 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn software project. SkierRMH,10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:SOFTWARE. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was once a high profile project and was an interesting attempt to try to lure Windows users to Linux. If you are trying to be a some of all human knowledge, then this needs to be kept. It does need to be written to though to make it more an artifact of history than an active project. A305w 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The sum of all human knowledge" goal/quote is hardly to be interpreted that literally. Memmke 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. The Animated Movie[edit]

Super Mario Bros. The Animated Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

prod (for crystal-balling) was removed --DrTorstenHenning 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, almost a speedy for lacking context. MER-C 09:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Crystal Ball. SkierRMH,10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fujyuu 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, Not a Crystal Ball. Maybe that should sort things out. :) --The Track Master 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone can provide proof that this is actually a real project. Deathawk 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the producer. ^_^ --The Track Master 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wishful thinking at best, hoax at worst. Danny Lilithborne 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a chill pill. I'll be adding development pictures if that helps. --The Track Master 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, this is not an article, it's just a statement that something may happen, and we have no idea what impact it will have. Secondly, if this were a real article, we'd run into notability; there's plenty of independent short animations featuring SMB. Just look at Newgrounds.com Mario parodies category to scratch the surface. In its current form, this article doesn't point to any kinds of guarantees on how phenomenally successful it will be. Sure, everyone loves a good SMB film; the question is, how is this thing different from others and why is it actually worth discussing now? This is like the game mods that we've had to delete because they hadn't been even released yet. If a major studio says they're going to make a film, that's notable because there's 99% chance it will be finished and the Consumers will take a note once it's out; this, however, has problems. Independent fanworks need, however, to demonstrate how much they rule, for example in form of press buzz. A studio which nets me whole 17 Google hits falls in the latter category in my opinion. In closing, by all means, we'd bid them welcome back once the film is out and they can somehow demonstrate the thing has become really really famous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I will be changing the article so don't worry. And about fanmovie stuff? Well, the thingy is, that my "short" film is actually not a flash movie, rather a scratch built video editor edited film. Also note my 'intended' run time of longer than 45 minutes. But please, do not worry. I understand your reasons, which is why I'm changing the article by putting in development pictures and posters. I have the trailer written, I even have the blimmin' film written. I do understand that Wikipedia is not a journal. But please, rest assured. I know you're very concerned about whether this is true or not. But you have the director/producer's word. It is coming. --The Track Master 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Denaar 13:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You all think you're the board of trustees? Don't you? :) --The Track Master 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt. A7, no assertion of notability. I can find no citations, there are no press releases when I do research on the topic, there is nothing out there on "Chrissers Films" except a google group and some internet video hosting sites. One would think a major media franchise with a huge Q Score would have gotten some press from the copyright holder, Nintendo? From all evidence put forward, this is a fan film. It's not notable. It misses everything in the proposed film notability guidelines. --Kunzite 23:21, 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 delete. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy grezshnaw[edit]

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

Smells like a hoax, a feeling shared by Daniel.Bryant and Humblefool on IRC. Google gives no matches for the full name, and nothing links to it. I could be totally wrong about this, and if I am, feel free to close this nomination.
Just a note: suspected hoaxes aren't a criterion for speedy deletion. --Slowking Man 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: The image was uploaded by the author of the article, and says it was taken in 2006, meaning that the youth in question was supposed to be 46... Strong Delete. yandman 09:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definite hoax, see the real Australian TV presenter Tracy Grimshaw (the article is virtually identical). --Canley 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and sh**s like a duck, it's spam. SkierRMH,10:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spam, it's a joke article. yandman 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as CSD G10 (attack page) or G3 (WP:VANDAL says "joke pages" are vandalism and would qualify as G3). I think the exclusion of hoaxes from CSD really means hoaxes put up in good faith, like Helius Project, rather than outright vandalism that "compromises the integrity" of WP. Tubezone 10:23, 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 deletoblog. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Econoblog[edit]

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

NN neologism. I'm not sure the world needs and accepts new names for each and every type of blog. These are simply blogs, but only differentiated by their subject matter. Ohconfucius 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deete per nom, useless neologism. SkierRMH,10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I put up a proposal for deletion, which didn't go, so I didn't press the matter further. But I'm glad somebody's bringing it up now. Switchercat ^talk_cont 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YAWN- Yet Another Web Neologism. Lurker ^oi! 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletoblog what Lurker said. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletoblog per zat guy ^ (because I really like the word, and because "econoblog" is a non-notable term). -- Kicking222 15:28, 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 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qoole[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Memmke 09:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE, 125 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom & MER-C. SkierRMH,10:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? into main article? --S kully Collins ^Edits 23:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - useless stub, WP:SOFTWARE. Pete Fenelon 01:44, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellarium[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Memmke 09:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per nom. nn software... SkierRMH,10:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rewrite has shown complies with WP:Software SkierRMH 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below. MER-C 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy keep - it meets the WP:SOFTWARE because it is part of Debian Unstable [21] and Gentoo portage [22], and it yields 586000 google hits (-wikipedia!). qwm 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and it's in Fedora Extras too[23] qwm 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
..and FreeBSD Ports [24] qwm 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a well written article that meets Wikipedia standards. Red1530 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as highly notable and easily passing WP:SOFT. 810,000 Google results. Almost rivals Celestia in popularity. --Czj 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral several comments here - most, if not all of the google links are to software directories. Most popular open source projects usually feature mailing list or forum chatter on the first few Google results pages. While not a valid test per WP:RS, a lack of these sort of results usually indicates a non-notable open source project. Secondly, as per WP:SOFTWARE, inclusion in the distributions mentioned does not immediately infer notablity. In particular, Debian Unstable, Fedora Extras and BSD Ports are additional sets of packages that are distributed seperately from their respective core distributions. Most code that successfully compiles and is properly licensed passes the inclusion test for these extra distributions. I also dispute the un-sourced claim that the software is as popular as Celestia. Regardless, I remain neutral as WP:SOFTWARE is not policy, and any notability inferred by the inclusion of the package in the distributions is subject to interpetation. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And most Google links for Windows probably point to unreliable Microsoft press releases, spammy web stores, and random blog posts where people discuss in excruciating detail how much Windows sucks. =) Secondly, Debian Unstable is not an "additional" repository of packages; it's simply the work-in-progress version of the next stable release of the operating system. Debian does not categorise software apart of saying this particular piece of software is "optional" (i.e., "this piece of software is not critical to the operation of your system, and, unless you want to look at stars and stuff, you may remove this thing safely"); "optional" label goes to a huge bunch of software. In the current Debian Popularity Contest (ranked by installs), which is specifically listed on WP:SOFTWARE as one way of gauging the popularity of open-source software, Stellarium is ranked #4522 out of 61036 packages, which is a very respectable rating. (Hint: mediawiki1.7 is currently ranked #7720, and surprise surprise, is "optional" as well...) I also wager that the "extras" packages in other Linux/BSD distributions cover a whole lot of stuff that is nevertheless very widely-used; Linux distributions are package-based and people tend to just install applications they need, even if it means admitting "oh poop, I need to point my installer to this extra package repository too, just to get the one I need". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's a very popular piece of software, and well known example of its type. As noted above, it has a respectable Debian popcon rating. And besides, if the local university's astronomy course lecturer just happens to use it and recommend it to everyone, it has to be good. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wwwwolf. --midkay 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is notable software and it's a good article. Pete Fenelon 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was the sourceforge project of the month for May 2006 if that doesnt qualify as notable I dont know what does! Htaccess 23:24, 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. I spent some time trying to discern consensus on this one. Because of the number of keep comments that came from potentially single-purpose accounts with a vested interest in the project, the number of keep comments is not a good indication by itself. Next I looked at the notability requirements specified in WP:SOFTWARE. The only claim being made for notability here is inclusion in the Debian software distribution, but even there, the claim was weakened by the apparently poor adoption. There are also the issues that this is a port of the DC++ software and that there is no current release. When taken as a whole, the arguments in favor of keep don't meet the requirements of notability. The other option was to merge to DC++, but per the sparse nature of the article and the lack of a release version, there isn't much to add that isn't already mentioned in the DC++ article. If more needs to be said, please expand the discussion of this version in the DC++ article. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxDC++[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Unrelased port of DC++. Memmke 09:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, 837 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is known by several other names such as linuxdcpp, 32,500 non-wiki hits. bheekling 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SunStar Net 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:SOFTWARE since it is included in Debian Unstable [25] --GargoyleMT 13:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually, WP:SOFTWARE specifically lists Debian as a bad indicator of notability ("some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution"). Xtifr _tälk 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which is why WP:SOFTWARE (or at least that section of it) is not a viable measure of notability. You can't say "It's notable if it's in Debian (but not if it's in Debian)" and expect people to use that as a suitable guideline. Also, in case anyone hasn't looked at it, WP:SOFTWARE is currently marked as a "draft" so I don't think using it as a basis for deletion is sound yet. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GargoyleMT. qwm 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It doesn't break any rules Douglish 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — Douglish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it's in Debian and FreeBSD. I wouldn't consider 837 hits (852 now, perhaps it's growing ;) to be small for an open source project. The lack of a physical release doesn't mean that it is unstable and rarely used. A release is planned by the end of the year, regardless. Stevensheehy 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — Stevensheehy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I've seen no compelling reason yet why it should be deleted. --TheParanoidOne 06:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most criticisms of WP:SOFTWARE that I've seen involve it being too inclusive (especially the free-software clause). Yet you seem to be using its still-tentative status as a justification for being even more inclusive. In the absence of more specific guidelines, the general guideline that prevails in AfDs is non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. If you're going to ignore WP:SOFTWARE (which, while somewhat controversial in parts, is usually well-received in AfD discussions), you should be providing more standard evidence of notability, not just saying, effectively, "keep 'cause I think it should be kept".

Merge to DC++, I see no reason why the Linux port needs its own separate article. I think any notability this product may have is independent of the platforms on which it may appear. Nor do I think the Linux port is different enough/unique enough to require a separate article. Xtifr _tälk 10:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per GargoyleMT. Nysin 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GargoyleMT. --midkay 07:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~possible merge into DC++~~ DC++ already says "LinuxDC++: a GNU/Linux port of DC++ with a GTK+ GUI" which is about all that can usefully be said about this project. It's 1) unreleased as yet 2) merely a port, not an independent product. Also lacks the independent non-trivial sources demanded by WP:SOFTWARE. Demiurge 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although there are no packages available on the Download site, it is possible to download LinuxDC++ through CVS. Personally, I find "port" awkwardly put. Porting doesn't imply how much a software need to be changed to not be a port, but "half" (the GUI) of LinuxDC++ is written from scratch. Also, the porting article say "The term is not usually applied to the process of adapting software [...] [rewritten] to a different language (i.e., language conversion or translation)". LinuxDC++'s GUI is written with Gtk+, which is C, while the DC++ code (that LinuxDC++ uses) is C++. Ullner 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum according to the Debian Popularity Contest suggested by WP:SOFTWARE, just 19 people (out of 19,796 people who participated in the survey) have installed the "linuxdcpp" package. So it looks like this isn't notable even among debian users. Demiurge 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You forgot that it's being developed actively so people (including me) build it from source instead of using the package, and that the Debian popularity contest isn't particularly popular either. Pelzi 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is in FreeBSD too [26] which is a criterion as stated in WP:SOFTWARE. Also, it being one of the only two active Direct Connect clients for Linux (the other being Valknut), I see no reason to delete it. bheekling 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note the possible sock puppet Douglish (seems to have registered the other day, no contributions to articles) and that Stevensheehy is the author of the program, WP:COI! Memmke 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. LinuxDC++ is the only one working/upcoming DC++ client for LinuxOS. It's more than a port from Windows. Yes, you can call me a 'sock puppet' too, but googling may reveal some of my works for FOSS in Russia and some opensource projects. I expect Wikipedia to listen to the user and developers thoughts. Pavlov Konstantin, Thresh 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) — Thresh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I know more than 3 users personally. LinuxDC++ is gaining popularity rapidly, and it is really a DC++ based client instead of just being a port of DC++ - the GUI is completely rewritten. Pelzi 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC) — Pelzi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Oh yes, I registered almost a year ago just to vote here... seriously, that's called misleading people. Pelzi 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In which way is it misleading to inform readers that you've made few or no edits outside this topic? Memmke 10:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sure is more relevant than a lot of other stuff nobody's questioning out there. Knk003 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like pretty much all the LinuxDC++ users have expressed their opinions here! Seriously though, I see a lot of non-arguments ("I know 3 users", "It's gaining popularity", "It's more relevant than [other stuff that should be deleted]", "Doesn't break any rules") and WP:ILIKEIT mentality here, and quite a few possible sock puppets and/or single purpose accounts. Summary:

Knk003 - Created on/before 18 August 2005. 17 edits, most to his/her user page, has engaged in another AfD together with qwm, who is also present here.

Pelzi - Created 22 January 2006. 5 edits, of which 3 have been to this AfD.

Thresh - Created 24 November 2006. 2 edits, to this AfD and LinuxDC++.

Douglish - Created 21 November 2006. 4 edits, to this AfD and his/her user page.

Stevensheehy - Created 1 September 2006. 8 edits, all around this topic.

That leaves four delete, one merge and six keep. Memmke 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user midkay recommended keep on this AfD and the one on Stellarium at the same time, both also have qwm recommending keep. Memmke 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just pointing out that the result of that discussion was Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulveriser (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 November 2006
Comment Yes, but with general consensus and a lot stronger arguments than those presented here. What I wanted to point out by mentioning that midkay and qwm have expressed their recommendations on both these AfDs in a similar fashion (but in no other AfDs) is that they seem to be cooperating or be the same person. Memmke 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definite merge to DC++, per Xtifr. What is mentioned here is simply a GNU/Linux variation of a Windows client with little details on differences, easily summed up in a section or line in the DC++ article. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Comment I think LinuxDC++ vs DC++ is akin to OpenArena vs Quake III Arena in several ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulveriser (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 November 2006

Comment I think merging is not a very good idea because LinuxDC++ has a separate user base, very different code and most importantly different developers, releases and aims (it's not an exact replicate of the Windows version, and never will be). The other derivatives listed in the DC++ article are modifications of the original DC++ with the same GUI.Pelzi 13:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Direct Connect (file sharing)#Client software, which covers a broader range of topics on DC. I still believe that the client has questionable notability, and I'll stay the idea of merging until this software is notable enough (by certainly satisfying criteria in WP:SOFTWARE) to merit its own article. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Keep - WP:SOFTWARE states: "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer." - this software has been added to Debian Unstable, which is a major operating system (despite not being the "stable" version). function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 11:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the article might need to be merged. But for now, a keep will suffice to me. function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - crz crztalk 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecozen[edit]

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

Unsourced and unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. At best a dicdef to be transwikified. Delete Ohconfucius 09:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable deep green jargon. --Nydas 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn neologism, 970 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 10:49, 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 Frag - crz crztalk 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JoeQuake[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Memmke 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 10:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per its non-assertion of notability, and lack of sources. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frag Absolutely no notability asserted whatsoever. -- Kicking222 21:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Okay, I've heard of it outside of Wikipedia. But aside of that, it's just a Quake source port, and while they would be worth discussing in an article of their own, I'm not really sure if JoeQuake is famous enough for an article of its own, even if it's in all likelihood on the verge of notability. If we had a Giant List of Quake Source Ports, this would be merge material. Very few source ports attain exceptional notability (I can only think of DarkPlaces, which is, as everyone knows, the Quake source port). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a cross between spam and a vanity page. DarkSaber2k 15:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity page about some one-man hack. Pete Fenelon 01:46, 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; fails WP:V rather miserably. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaskan Dog[edit]

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

I believe that this cool-sounding breed of dog is in fact an elaborate, well-orchestrated hoax. It is not recognised by any kennel club, and there are no reliable sources for the claims made in the article. The language in which 'Tamaskan' is supposed to mean 'mighty wolf' is unknown; it is not Finnish. The 'Tamaskan Dog Register' and the 'Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain', from which much of the content is lifted, are slapdash websites which could have been made by anyone. The creator and principal contributor to this article, Blufawn, is apparently the breeder of these dogs, and their contributions consist of this article, links to this article and pictures of Scottish deerhounds. Blufawn is also the manager of the Tamaskan dog web ring.
A google search turns up nothing conclusive, mainly forums and sites which allow user submitted content. There is a dog owner forum with two threads suggesting that the Tamaskan is just a repackaged Utonagan, a breed with virtually identical characteristics[27] [28]. Nydas 10:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be thinly disguised spam for author User:Blufawn. User:80.223.126.199 tried pulling AfD tag from the page, may be a Blufawn sock. User:80.223.126.199 also put links to Tamaskan on other related breed pages (like Coydog), which were removed by other editors. Tubezone 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the Suomen Kennelliitto there are five native Finnish dog breeds: the Finnish Hound, the Finnish Lapphund, the Karelian Bear Dog, the Finnish Spitz and the Karelo-Finnish Laika. The "Tamaskan Dog" is not mentioned anywhere and also I find it suspicious that the article claims that Tamaskan means "mighty wolf" or "strong wolf" because it means nothing in Finnish. Therefore I think it's a hoax. --さくら木 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that this breed of dog is not a hoax by any means. Sure it is not recognised by any Kennel Club at the moment but then neither are other breeds such as the Utonagan and Northern Inuit, Labradoogles etc but this does not mean that they are not a breed in themselves. The name was taken from the North American Indian language meaning mighty wolf and no it is not a Finnish word but then neither is the word Utonagan English but taken from a North American Indian saying, yet they are classing themselves as a British breed! Considering the comments about the Tamaskan Dog Register's website being 'slapdash'. I would like to point out here that they are indeed receiving emails almost on a daily basis congratulating them on their professional looking website and beautiful dogs and interest is pouring in from all corners of the globe hence they have this year alone sent Tamaskan out to USA, Holland, Great Britain, Sweden and of course Finland. There have been 3 litters of Tamaskan born this year in Great Britain alone along with others elsewhere. Just because these breeders dont have websites dosnt mean that they dont exist. There are breeders in USA that also dont have websites. You will find that the vast majority of good breeders do not have websites, not everyone even owns a computer! I suggest that people who are not involved with the Tamaskan breed let them carry on with the good work that they are doing and do not make comments about other breeds of which they obviously have no knowledge. I would like to point out here to all the Utonagan people who seem hell bent for some reason or other on trying to interfere with the Tamaskan that the name Utonagan was bought in as a means from escaping the name Northern Inuit!!! so who are they to judge!!! I also have it on good authority that they are using other breeds to widen their gene pool so just what is their problem, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!! As I see it and probably I speak for many others who read these notes that these people are obviously so jealous of others and have nothing better to do with their time than critise and malign anything that is not to their liking and before anyone else jumps to any conclusions I am not from the Tamaskan Register but visiting from UK in order to see these dogs for myself first hand and from what I see I am definately going to book one of these lovely puppies. I have also seen all the awful comments made by the Northern Inuit and Utonagan people in GB on their forums and to be frank I dont now believe a word of them it all shouts very much JEALOUSY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.126.199 (talk • contribs)

Comment - if you're not from the Tamaskan register, how can you know they get emails on a daily basis? And which Native American language is Tamaskan from? Utonagan is apparently from the Chinook language.--Nydas 11:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The description of Tamaskan in the article: The Tamaskan is a mix of different types of Arctic breeds, including Alaskan Malamute and Siberian Husky, but it also contains a very small amount of German Shepherd. In other words, it's a mutt, right? Isn't this basically just a naming contrivance used to give some mutts a high-falutin' "purebred" sounding moniker so they can be sold for higher prices? Tubezone 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I am jealous of others and have nothing better to do with my time than critise and malign anything that is not to my liking. Seriously though, all three domain names referenced in the article (tamaskan-dog.com, tamaskan-dog.co.uk, blustag-arcticbreeds.com) are registered to either "Lynn Sharkey" or "Jenny Sharkey", so these sites all seem to be run by the same individual or family. At best, this appears to be original research. Demiurge 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax or not, I am unable to find any references outside of the single source identified above, so it fails WP:V. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it appears to be a hoax, or at the very least, serious spam. --Etacar11 14:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the previous unsigned comment is accurate, then this would seem to be a very new and certainly, according to everyone else, unrecognized breed, whose only proponents seem to possibly be the breeders themselves. While I do not believe that the article would necessarily qualify as Spam on that basis, I do think that, as of yet, the breed is not yet noted enough to qualify as notable according to wikipedia guidelines. Once a kennel club or other outside organization recognizes them, or they even have an article about them in Dog Fancy or some similar magazine that they can point to, that would change, but, as of yet, there really isn't what I consider compelling evidence available to me to convince me that this breed is both verifiable and notable yet. Badbilltucker 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am a graduate student with access to a tremendous number of online databases. I just performed a quick search on the word 'Tamaskan' in the likes of Academic Search Premier, BooksinPrint.com Professional, Dissertations and theses (Proquest), Electronic Collections Online, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. and did not get a single hit. Of course, there's always the possibility I am doing something wrong. If the folks who would like to retain this article would contact me and inform me of how to find credible, published scholarly writings referencing the Tamaskan Dog, I'll gladly look again. Please be kind; I'm trying to help and seek compromise with quality. Another idea I've had is to include mention of the Tamaskan Dog as a feature in the mixed breed article. Perhaps that has already been discussed, and if so, please accept my apologies as I get up to speed on all things Wiki ... Keesiewonder 16:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I said that I was here from UK to visit one of the breeders of these dogs and to see them for myself. I thought that it would be obvious to anyone that the breeder would be showing me lots of photographs and filling me in with all the details especially as I am well aware of all the bitching going on from the Northern Inuit and Utonagan people in UK which do nothing more than to show them up for the type of people that they are and I for one would never have bought a puppy from that kind of person. Also I have seen the many testimonials from people perfectly satisfied with their Tamaskan and copies of some of the nice emails that the Tamaskan Register have received from people enquiring about the breed. It was only when I was shown the article on this wikipedia site that we saw the comments above and I felt that I must write something in defense of this lovely breed of dog. I stick by my comments that only people with an axe to grind and suffering from pure jealosy would be bothered to find fault and ask for this article to be deleted. Deleted or not the Tamaskan is here to stay and will only increase in numbers as time goes by. What is it you are all frightend of? Is it the fact that they look more wolflike in appearance than the NI and Utonagan. Judging by the mails I have been shown and the comments I have heard myself they certainly look a whole lot better than either of the aforementioned breeds. Or is it because someone else is doing a good job of promoting their breed and getting on with their life. I have had a lovely stay here and am looking forward to receiving my puppy who will living a great life alongside my Dogue de Bordeaux who incidently started out life as a crossbreed of Bulldog and Bull Mastiff!! as didnt most breeds of today. Start out as a cross between something or other. Angela Broadbent UK.

The above appears to have been provided by 80.223.126.199 11:28, November 21, 2006.

Angela, I completely understand and would undoubtedly join your love of this breed if I had one of my own. We're writing an encyclopedia entry here, though, and need to have scholarly resources to back up our words. Personal experience is great, but it just doesn't cut it in academic writing unless you are a known authority with published works of your own. I don't think anyone is afraid of anything other than the claim that Wikipedia is not a good source of information, i.e. not a real encycopedia, unless we cite references for our information. Please help me find authoritative documentation on this breed, or please be patient until such documentation comes forth. Please also seriously consider opening an account on Wikipedia and signing your posts with that. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - According to wikipedia the definition of a hoax is 'A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real.' Tamaskans are obviously real, there is more than one picture of a Tamaskan dog on the websites, there is more than one breeder and more than one litter advertised from more than one kennel and in more than one country. They have a dog showing club in judgedogs.com with more than one Tamaskan entered owned by morehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaskan_Dog&action=edit&section=1 than one person. They also have more than one website and more than one breeders website, yes both of which have the same webmaster, but does that mean that the breed does not exist??? Therefore if this breed is a hoax it's an extremely elaborate one to try and trick wikipedia readers into believing there is a breed of dog which does not exist.Blufawn

Delete - Hoax may have been a bad choice of words on someone's part. I do not feel the breed is a hoax and I do not feel that these dogs do not exist. Obviously, they do. As a potential contributing writer, however, I feel we need credible, scholarly resources if the article is going to remain a part of the Wiki encyclopedia. We're looking for something more than a website by a breed fancier, photos from proud Tamaskan companions, and descriptions of personal experience. If we cannot find the credible material now, then when it does become available in the future, even if the current article is deleted, the breed will then be granted the space, with citations, that it deserves. Keesiewonder 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails WP:V, plain and simple.

Delete as above. article failsWP:V Scienter 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is spam meant to make the Tamaskan Dog breed known and to make money off breeding mutts under a high-falutin name. Wikipedia is not for advertising or for getting attention for something not notable yet. It's for things that are already notable. The Tamaskan dog is not yet notable any more than shimaltipoos are notable. There's nothing wrong with a mutt: you can get a loving one at any animal shelter. You don't need a high-falutin name and price to get one. --Charlene 20:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The price figures I've seen bandied about are $1300 - $1500 each, which sounds a bit steep to me for a dog of such uncertain provenance. I think it's about time to put this puppy to sleep (some might prefer a demise similar to Snowball II), and while we're at it, euthanize the rest of his sockpuppy litter, too. All seem to have incurable unverifiable porcine contranotability syndrome. Tubezone 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this cannot be verified by reliable sources.--Isotope23 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable canine concoction and (thanks to good research by Demiurge), spam by one particular breeder of these dogs.Montco 01:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Keesiewonder for explaining to me why this article should be put forward for deleting, I understand your point of view although I don't agree with it. But at least you explained it nicely unlike some who I don't think grasp the idea still. The deletion of this article is not to do with what language Tamaskan is in, or if you disagree with cross breeds or designer dogs or if you wish to argue which breeds were used in the making of this new breed. Or even if you like the website or think its unproffessional. Nor is this article spam : - An article considered advertisement to include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service. May I point out the Tamaskan Dog Register is not a business and they do not sell the puppies and The Tamaskan Dog Society of Great Britain do not give a product or service...yes I agree breeders do make a profit and you may wish to think about deleting the breeders advertisements on all dog breed pages.

We do actually have an article coming out in the next few months in a high profile dog magazine and so I agree you may delete the article if you so wish and I may replace it once the magazine has been published. Blufawn
Yeah, that's basically how Wikipedia works: If you can't really demonstrate this thing is really all that notable now, you won't get an article; However, once the thing does get really notable, no one has a problem with having the article around. Basically, that's all the deletion is about. The nominator also raises the point that there's possibility of this article is part of an elaborate scheme to make the subject more notable (in other words, covert marketing); Wikipedia is not the place to promote an idea, a product, or an animal breed for that matter. While I agree it's not outright spam, having an article about an animal breed that's only mentioned in a few places does raise slight concerns about the reason why the article is here.
If you allow me to do some funny analogies: This is kind of like an unreleased game mod. A "fan work" that's, while condoned, is not officially recognised by the company that makes the game. Fan-made works are generally on shaky ground in Wikipedia; one must prove they're really famous. Many articles about unreleased game mods have been deleted because they're about an unreleased mod with little press mentions or anything like. But once they get a magazine's attention, that's all nice and keepable. However, in case of dog breeds, you probably need more than just a single magazine article to sway the opinion. And all I'm saying is, simply, that patience is a virtue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wwwwolf. I understand that Tamaskan need more media attention but I did originally feel as if I was subjected to personal attacks rather than just people telling me about the wikipedia rules which I had to look up for myself. They say we need official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies or statistics compiled by authoritative agencies.. very soon we are likely to have nearly all of these we do now have two official letter and statistics compiled by the BVA. It also says companies and organizations may be used as sources and I think The Tamaskan Dog Register counts as an organization as does The Tamaskan Society of Great Britain. I just didn't like being attacked personally by other Wikipedia members suggesting I had created the article purely for my own profit as a breeder of these dogs, when at the time I wrote the article in Febuary I only owned one male and was not a breeder, and even though now I own a female I am not planning a litter until 2008 as my female is too young so this article is certaintly not spam helping me 'make money off breeding mutts under a high-falutin name.' and I beleive that sort of insultive critisism does not belong on a talk page about reliable sources. Blufawn

Comment I agree with User:Blufawn that some people might have been a bit quick to accusation here, me among them. If I was, I apologize. Having said that, I think that one thing that might reduce the possibility of further such attacks in the future is if you create a userpage for yourself. Most users do that fairly quickly after signing up, and it is a major cause of suspicion when editors see that the link in the signature is red. Most such contributors are newcomers and/or single purpose accounts, that purpose generally being a not particular highly valued one (spam, advertising, attacks, and other things outside of wikipedia guidelines). Also, if the article is deleted, as it might be, I hope you realize that that deletion does not necessarily mean that the article cannot be recreated. I am aware of similar pages for reality show contestants that were created before the show was made, deleted, and then recreated later after the show aired, so it has been done before. You might also want to get in contact with either WikiProject Dogs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds, as they would be the two groups most likely to be able to help you improve the quality of the article when we have what wikipedia considers sufficient evidence of notability as per the existing notability guidelines for dogs. Badbilltucker 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Blufawn, I have to agree with Badbilltucker and emphasize that a user page of your own plus collaboration with the Wiki Projects mentioned will help tremendously. And, you're welcome for my explanation provided earlier; thanks for noticing I was trying to help! :-) Keesiewonder 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I have added some user page information (I think) but I don't quite know how to contact WikiProject Dogs or Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds Blufawn

Comment While I laud users Badbilltucker, Keesiewonder and Wwwwolf for their efforts to maintain civility and assumption of good faith in this discussion, I want to point out that as of today, there are no verifiable secondary reliable sources to establish notability, breeding community acceptance, or even existence of this breed. Everything I've turned up on searches are WP mirrors or sites that accept user submissions, (often the submissions are identical from one site to another), all of which seem to lead back to the author's web site on Tamaskans. The article itself is a conflict of interest as the author or people associated with the author seems to be the only source of information, and the links in the article lead only to web sites maintained by that group of people. Tubezone 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I couldn't agree more, Tubezone. My recommendation to delete the article is above and is 6 days old.Keesiewonder 01:08, 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 08:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vintage chimps[edit]

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

Appears to be a band of minor note, not passing WP:MUSIC - unsigned, 23 unique Google hits for band name, only credible references are a couple of brief BBC local news articles (e.g. [29]). ~Matticus ^T_C 10:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet any of the points at WP:MUSIC, and the band certainly hasn't achieved any great deal of notability. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band should not be deleted. Are currently recording an album for release next year once demos are submitted to label. records in America, subsequent tour next year, and members have toured with David Ford, Duke Spirit, Dogs Die In Hot Cars, Si Connelly, and tour managed the latter. Also, featured artist on Ween.net three years ago. Band recently reformed and www.thevintagechimps.co.uk bought for subsequent development.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.145.226.70 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Okay then, that information needs to be sourced and added to the article. This will strengthen a case for keeping. However, forthcoming releases and tours, unless they're officially confirmed and verifiable by a press release or similar, can't really be counted towards notability (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - editors should write about things that are notable already, not things that might be notable next year). You say they haven't even sent demos out to the record labels yet - how can they be sure they will get signed and this album and tour will go ahead? As I say, their notability is open to debate, which is why I took this to AfD instead of an outright CSD-A7 deletion, and if some other claims to notability besides those already written about are unearthed as a result, so much the better. ~Matticus ^T_C 17:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only notability asserted is unsourced. Likely fail WP:BAND on all fronts. -- Kicking222 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none of the points raised by 217.145.226.70 have any bearing on Wikipedia:Notability (music), the relevant guideline here. The arguments might be relevant to the question of whether this band might be notable in the future, but as an answer to the question of whether the band is notable now, they fall completely flat. Xtifr _tälk 11:05, 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 Calling a halt. We have, as predicted, puppets and apparent solicitation. We have, as I should have realised, a clear conflict of interest, with the major Keep proponent being the society's own Internet Officer. We have some individuals calling speedy delete as repost of vanispamcruftisement. Enough. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A society with 26 members, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society and endorsed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July), re-created three months later on the grounds that "I think enough time has passed", but time was not at issue in the AfD; what was at issue (and remains so) is that this is a tiny and largely self-selected society. Most of the article is about the reliability of IQ tests outside about four standard deviations from the mean, which should be in the article on IQ. Although the article has references they are mostly for the inclusion of members; there appear to be very few (if any) non-trivial mentions of the society itself. It's also hard to see it as anything other than self-aggrandisement by a small group of people, including Christopher Michael Langan, on whom we already have more than enough information. Note that this is not quite a G4 repost, although the content is largely similar. Incidentally, if past experience is anything to go by we may be in for a virtuoso display of puppet theatre, please do not feed the trolls shuld they arrive. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time, there is apparently still confusion over the relationship between Christopher Michael Langan and the Mega Society. Langan is an early member of the Mega Society but he no longer participates. A few years ago he quarreled with other members of Mega and tried to take the society's name and the name of its journal and operate his own version of the society; he was eventually stopped by a court order and an adverse ICANN ruling on Mega Society domain names. For details see the Mega Society History links on this page: http://www.megasociety.org/about.html Kevin Langdon 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above rationale. Reading through the article, I'm concerned that this article is both unverifiable and unmaintainable -- and especially that the majority of its content is only tangentially relevant to this "Mega Society". I'd also like to think that super-geniuses would be able to think of a better name for their society than that. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered e.g. in The Wall Street Journal, so I think it is notable enough to deserve an article in WP. --Ioannes Pragensis 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt for now anyways recreation of deleted material. Deleted after AfD and deletion review. It's gonna take some very convincing arguments to overturn those decisions. MartinDK 12:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Even though there is a list of what look like references, as Guy points out they do not prove the society to be notable. There seems to be a lot of WP:VAIN conduct to examine here as well. The Crying Orc 13:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has been extensively expanded with sources since the original AfD request; enough to indicate its notability, which was what the closing admin had indicated would be acceptable (see talk page). That Christopher Michael Langan passed the mega test is hardly reason for deletion and indicates possible confusion with his "Mega Foundation". A speedy delete request was rejected just a few weeks ago. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some reasons:

1. The deletion decision was procedurally flawed. As a result the reviewing admin encouraged a rewrite of the article. See Talk:Mega Society.

2. The argument for deletion mentions Langan but not Marilyn vos Savant, Solomon W. Golomb, and John H. Sununu. The implication is that the society supports Langan, whereas the fact is that the society sued Langan. See [30].

3. The society has been listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most elite ultra high IQ society. This alone makes it notable.

4. If the nature of a society limits its size, then size alone is not a criterion for deletion. See Order of the Garter with 26 members.

5. Obviously this society rubs some people the wrong way, which is affecting their judgement. For example, the statement that "most of the article is about the reliability of IQ tests" is patently false. The statement that "super-geniuses" should be able to "think of a better name" is pejorative. That a subject is offensive is not a good criterion for deletion. Canon 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Questions to the above

Wikipedia is not The Guiness Book of World Records. What sets this record apart from the others given the limited media attention given to this group?

The comparison with Order of the Garter is flawed. That group is included because it's age makes it a notable group. The Mega Society does not fulfill that criterion.

Regarding number 5 you are assuming bad faith. Please don't do that. It is infantile and heavily frowned upon. Take your misconceptions of regular people elsewhere.

How does this article differ from the deleted one.? In particular how do you justify effectively ignoring 2 deletion verdicts? MartinDK 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For your last point, see Talk:Mega Society as suggested. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not good enough. Do you intend to make the original article available for review so we can judge ourselves rather than rely on other people's memory of what they read months ago? No matter what the closing admin noted reposting after an unsuccesful attempt at rescuing it at deletion review requires a substantial if not complete rewrite. In other words, you need to prove to us that this is an entirely new article. This might have been good enough after an AfD, it isn't good enough after deletion review. MartinDK 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-admin I can't make the original article available - it was deleted! :-) Anyway it is irrelevant; does the article as it is now merit deletion is the only issue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific answers:
1. As an example of why the Guinness listing is significant, it was Marilyn vos Savant's association with the society that resulted in her being listed in Guinness, which in turn led to her column in Parade (magazine), which is the most widely read magazine in the United States.

2. The society has been cited in many mainstream books and other publications, not just Guinness, as referenced in the article.

3. There are many societies that are old. The Order of the Garter is included because it's members are selected by the Queen of England. By the way, one of the arguments given above is that the the society is "largely self-selected." This is both false and pejorative.

4. I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm giving evidence of bias. Those are not the same thing.

5. The article differs from the deleted one in that it is an extensive rewrite.

6. The original deletion was procedurally flawed, and revealed a Catch-22 in Wikipedia policy. The original deletion admin admitted that he merely counted up the votes, which is contrary to policy, but the reviewing admin followed policy when he counted up the votes on the review. In other words, if there are a large number of people who want an article deleted for whatever reason, and if the deletion admin doesn't follow policy and merely counts up votes, then there is no real recourse. This may be why the reviewing admin encouraged a rewrite and resubmit. Canon 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon was a major contributor to the article prior to deletion. I have resotred the history (deletion was end of July) so people can judge the extent to which this is a repost. I don't think it's a G4, I do think it's perilously close to an A7 and I definitely think the sources are inadequate, in that they are evidence only of existence (and we already know it exists, we just don't know why we are supposed to care). Guy (Help!) 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out the sources -- of which there now 21 as opposed to just 1 when the original AfD was raised -- are not just evidence of existence, but also of notability. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:
1. That Guy points out that I am a contributor to the article shows that the issue of bias is relevant to this discussion. I am not assuming bad faith by pointing out that the deletion proponents show evidence of bias. At any rate as can be read in the restored discussion I am not trying to hide my identity; I am Chris Cole the Internet Officer of the Mega Society.
Then you have a clear conflict of interest. Please go away now and stop disrupting our processes for your own vanity. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. The "why we should care" article mainly discusses the need for verifiable citations in mainstream publications. That has been done in the article. However, the underlying theme is that the idea of a small group of people who score highly on an IQ test is not notable. Here is why it is: Either intelligence is something real or it is not. For the purposes of Wikipedia we can assume it is real since there is no consensus that it is not. If it is real, it can be measured. It is difficult to measure anything that is rare, and efforts to do so are interesting. The Mega Society does not exist in a vacuum; it is the last in a series of societies that have been assembled over the years. As such it represents the limits of the art and science of intelligence testing as it currently exists. That makes it notable. Canon 16:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasons for deletion or "issues" as stated above by GUY: "what was at issue (and remains so) is that this is a tiny and largely self-selected society" have been addressed. Namely that the selective nature of the club limits it's size as stated by Canon. The "issue" of the club being "largely self-selected" is ridiculous, "self-selection" means selection by oneself of oneself, I don't see how it applies here, even if it did I don't see what preclusion would be involved.Tstrobaugh 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't matter how small a group is, the point is there are multiple reliable independent mainstream sources to attest to its notability. This article is better sourced tham most Wikipedia articles.Edison 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are for membership of individuals. There is only one non-trivial source about the society, and its most vociferous proponent turns out to be the society's own Internet Officer.. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Edison above. -- Dominus 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The PNC requires that the article's subject have been the subject of multiple, independent sources. When you look at the sources, the only one that qualifies is the WSJ story. Thus, the "multiple" requirement isn't met. I also would question whether it is appropriate to count a Journal Column Four story as a source for purposes of satisfying the notability requirements, since topics for those stories are chosen deliberately for their obscurity. JChap2007 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other sources are about the Mega Society itself, as well its members. Enough to qualify as "multiple". --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify which ones? JChap2007 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Omni article, for example. As per Edison, Dominus, this article is better sourced tham most Wikipedia articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. AfD isn't about the quality of the article, but whether the subject is suitable for inclusion. Something that may be an acceptable source to cite in an article will not necessarily meet the notability requirements. JChap2007 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading the Omni article when it was first published. So there are at least two entirely independent sources, twenty years apart, attesting to the existence, longevity, and notability of the group. I am frankly surprised that anyone is arguing that this article should be deleted. I thought it was a well-known organization. -- Dominus 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject must be the society itself and the article must be independent of the society (so the articles by the society's founder wouldn't qualify for present purposes). JChap2007 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guinness articles are about the Society and it looks like they stretch from 1983 to 1990, not 1986. The Omni articles are written by Scot Morris, not Ronald Hoeflin, so this needs to be fixed in the references. Since Hoeflin founded the Society he will be mentioned in any reference to it, but for example the Simonton and Jacobs books both only mention the Society and Hoeflin. All of the references discuss the Society and some of them are only about the Society. By the way, while checking this I found some other books on Google Books that discuss the Society. Canon 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions in Guinness are not really in articles, but as part of directory listings, so they are not considered sources for purposes of notability. Most of the books on Google books use the term "mega-society" in a different way that does not refer to this organization. Of those that mention the organization, that's all they do--mention it. In order for the notability criteria to be satisfied, the Society (not Hoeflin) would have to be the subject, implying some extended discussion. Only the Simonton book even bothers to reference "Mega Society" in its index and that is only one page. The articles in Omni seem better, but looking closely, according to the Village Voice article, the 1985 article was a reproduction of the Hoeflin's test, not an article about the society. The 1990 article, both from the title and how it's used in the WP article also seems to be a reproduction of the test for Omni's readers, not a source that we can use to write an article about the Society. JChap2007 00:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if one were to sit down which these references and compose an article about the Society, one would end up with an article very similar to the current article. That is the purpose of giving references, to verify the information in the article. As has already been stated by others, this article is well-sourced by Wikipedia's (or I dare say any encyclopedia's) standards. The statement that a listing in Guinness is not evidence of notability seems contrary to reason. I fear that the discussion is veering in the direction of trying to define "notability" which is well-trodden (some might think over-trodden) ground. At the risk of redundancy, the society is notable because Hoeflin and others use it as a testbed for high range testing, and the members are statistically unusual. Canon 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we do and indeed it is. I would simply note that you are conflating the idea of notability (for WP purposes) with that of anomaly. JChap2007

An anomaly is notable if the subject is important. So again the question boils down to intelligence: Is it real, is it measurable, and is it important? Canon 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Canon on at least one point here: to assert that listings in the Guinness Book of World Records fail to weigh on the question of notability, as JChap2007 has, seems completely bizarre. -- Dominus 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mega Society is the highest-cutoff high-IQ society with credible admission standards (though Mega is pushing the limits of what's possible given the state of the art of high-range psychometrics). It is very well known to those with an interest in the high-IQ-societies community; this community itself is beginning to be discovered by the mainstream media and can be expected to receive more media exposure in the near future, given the strong public interest in the subject of intelligence. Kevin Langdon 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)— Kevin Langdon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..[reply]

Keep. A standard definition of encyclopedia says such a thing contains articles "covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Now, 'IQ' and 'high-IQ societies' are linked nodes along a branch of knowledge stemming from the node of 'intelligence'. And as the AfD aptly shows, the Mega Society is a recognized member of the set of high-IQ societies. Therefore, by definition of 'encyclopedia' and by the reality of its recognition (as referenced in the AfD), the Mega Society is a logical member of the set of wikipedia entries. QED Ian Goddard 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's not mathematics, that's theology! This is getting amusing. We have a single purpose account just above this one and now we have another attempt to laywer his way around Wikipedia policies. Also we have User:Canon who openly admits that his contributions violate WP:COI despite the fact that he still wrote most of the article as it is now. Recreation of spam, we should speedy delete and warn those trying to Wikilaywer themselves into Wikipedia. Won't work no matter what. Also, how is a society of 26 out of a potential target group of thousands of people on earth notable? It is still only 1 in a million people... that amounts to thousands of people worldwide. What makes a group of 26 people notable in that context? MartinDK 07:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MartinDK asks, how can the society be notable? The more relevant question is, is it notable? The numerous sources and google hits testify that it is notable. That's not theology, that's empiricism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not ask how can I asked how is. Do not twist my words, this is not a courtroom. Wikilaywering is against policy and will not work. Also, you still fail to provide any references to Wikipedia policy telling us why we should care about your arguments. MartinDK 07:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I did not quote you, I used italics to indicate the sense of your question, and to indicate that you asked the wrong question. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not tell me what to ask you... MartinDK 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high density of citations in this article demonstrates how real the society is. Aaronbrick 07:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one! Is it notable? No; It fails the primary notability criterion - it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. We have evidence of existence, we have evidence for membership of some individuals, and we have pretty much nothing else. Certainly no credible evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' We are not debating the factual accuracy of the article. No one calls this a hoax, we know it is real but why should we care about an article recreated with citations and sources but virtually no new text? Also, why should we care about arguments without references to Wikipedia policies? MartinDK 07:46, 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 as re-creation of the same hoax as deleted several times before. This is simply Briefsism (AfD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (more AFD discussion) once again. Uncle G 10:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous men who wear briefs[edit]

List of famous men who wear briefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is listcruft, it's not sourced properly - no references given - and is a possible hoax. SunStar Net 10:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Memmke 10:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove: this is an interesting article! 158.37.145.95 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... impossible to prove, though I'm sure there'd be lots of volunteers!SkierRMH 10:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is total pants. --Folantin 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Movementarian (Talk) 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delele: I don't even think we need to justify this one. Ben W Bell talk 10:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 10:56, 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 and userfy. The article has already been copied to the user subpage User:Wikiproject2006/article for merge subpage. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are There Myths?/10 Mythical Creatures of North America[edit]

Why Are There Myths?/10 Mythical Creatures of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Likely that this article is an essay of original researchLethaniol 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it's not OR, it's certainly an essay and almost certainly covers ground better covered elsewhere. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and BigHaz. --Folantin 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Movementarian (Talk) 10:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporate all the info into their respective articles. --さくら木 11:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On top of all the above, it has an incredibly stupid title. The Crying Orc 13:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was, in the end, rather a bad idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I appreciate that everyone has their own opinions about what I have come up with but wouldn't it be more useful if you gave helpful suggestions to make it better rather than "it needs to go"? Thank you to the person who suggested finding other articles along the same line to "Incorporate" information I have found into. That is very useful and I will be looking into that. (left by User:Wikiproject2006)

Merge then Delete after transferring useful information to the appropriate articles (e.g. Chupacabra) Regarding why it's up for deletion instead of improvement per votes so far (if I understand their reasoning) is that this reads as a secondary source based on (very well cited) primary sources, which is not really what wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, that reports as much as possible on research published in peer-reviewed academic secondary sources (journals, conferences, news sources, etc). Hope that helps (and apologies to other editors if I misunderstood their OR based votes). -Markeer 17:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then DeleteYes, Thank you...This is very helpful. I appreciate that you have taken the time to give constructed criticism and very useful information. (left by User:Wikiproject2006)

Delete per nom -- Whpq 17:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Delete seems to be the best option.--Isotope23 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest Deleting the page but leaving a copy as a subpage of User:Wikiproject2006, so that it can be worked upon and then bits transferred to relevant articles as needed? It is just that working on this article and merging it into others might take quite a bit of work. Cheers Lethaniol 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that suggestion. Original Research or not, the author obviously put in a great deal of effort sourcing and footnoting this article, which could only enhance those articles it would be merged into. As I'm sure we're all aware, a lack of citation is an all-too-common problem and it would be a shame for all that research to completely go to waste. -Markeer 02:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage...I really appreciate this option. I was dreading the issue of time and the moving of information. Please correct me if I am wrong but now I just need to copy the information into User:Wikiproject2006/subpage and it will all be saved under my user name then delete the page all of this talk is about? Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiproject2006 (talk • contribs)

You did the move to a subpage correctly... and don't forget to sign you comments on talkpages, AfD discussions, etc with --~~~~.--Isotope23 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that will work fine, but only copy and paste to that subpage (or another subpage of whatever name you prefer), don't delete the original article under discussion. I'd suggest doing that now in case the article vote ends up for deletion, so that you can retrieve useful work as needed. By the way (since I'm guessing you are relatively new to wikipedia, apologies if that's incorrect), deletion isn't yet certain as Article for Deletion discussions are kept going for at least a week before any final decision is made. This deletion process can seem a bit harsh, but it's not arbitrary or immediate. The idea behind it is to seek consensus from a variety of editors before anything drastic is done. As you are obviously interested in well-researched topics and you express yourself well, please don't let this discussion (or the final decision, regardless of what it is) discourage you from continuing to help enhance Wikipedia -Markeer 15:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for this help. This is my first go at posting here and I appreciate those of you who have clearly expressed yourselves and offered the help I obviously need. I will continue to look for those places my work fits into via my subpage and wait to see what happens with this issue. Wikiproject2006 11:45 am (PST), 22 November 2006

Delete I noticed some very obviously bad spelling errors like "ones" instead of "one's". This convinces me the essay is poor. Anomo 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per above. There are many references in this article which certainly shouldn't go to waste. AdamDobay 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete per above. I also agree with this comment. Perhaps the tie-in of myths and dreaming could be merged into the dream article, and there are no dream symbolism sub categories as of yet. SriMesh

Keep so that the originator ofthis page can improve it. I think there are WP articles for each of the myths, tho not all of them empasisize the N Amer context. There are more to be "found", and if someone wants to do such a list in a proper way, it would be a good project. the first half of the article is another matter, and should probably be addd to some appropriate page, but dont ask me which.

Perhaps what we need is a probation period for articles---"you have 2 weeks to redo this and get it right." DGG 05:23, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Post[edit]

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

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Post

Several months later this article still does not meet the requirements set in WP:WEB, there is no claim of notability made besides being an "anti-FReeper" site.
The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website has not won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation The content is not 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 article provides no proof that its subject meets any of these criteria. This is an easy delete --RWR8189 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Lurker ^oi! 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly even CSD A7; makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. Just another political web forum. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed wrong vote. --Charlene 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an important and notable libertarian / conservative forum. Good Alexa stats Alexa Stats Should be noted that nominator is an admitted Free Republic member and supporter. FR and LP have a well known adversarial relationship. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to explain how this blog is "well known," what its claim to notability is, how it any way satisfies WP:WEB?--RWR8189 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has no sources or claim meeting WP:WEB. Weregerbil 11:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom this article doesn't meet WP:WEB at all. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow. Another non sequitur from FAAFA. Shocking. In any case, I don't object to this article being deleted-I suppose there are more notable articles that have met a similar fate-although I disagree that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we all just stop with the childish games of labeling people into little boxes please. Thank you. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- article makes no claims of coverage that would lead to notability under WP:WEB- Alexa rank of 28,000 insufficient to lead me to think the subject is notable enough to merit an article. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesnt seem to be noteable and the article doesnt make any claims of its nobility. As to the above non-sequitor disguised attack, the relationship of nominator to an unrelated website is irrelevant. The article needs to stand on its own without regard to the nominator and at this point, it has failed to do so. Dman727 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm an inclusionist. Maybe the article needs more work, but the nomination largely referred to the subject - Liberty Post. It IS the leading Libertarian / Conservative political forum, and also known as an important Conservative voice critical of the policies and recent direction of Free Republic. There are other political forums of much less notability that have articles on Wiki. Sorry to see it go - and I've never even posted there, nor read it more than infrequently. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm an inclusionist as well and I think it notable enough. Lawyer2b 14:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because ... care to expand? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Conservative Underground in more notable than this site, and it was deleted for failing WP:WEB in the same fashion. Crockspot 17:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - CU Alexa Stats vs LP Alexa Stats Not even close. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think another article should be removed then you should put it up for deletion. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and FAAFA. Not notable. --Tbeatty 06:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all three criteria for WP:WEB. Jinxmchue 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. -THB 22:23, 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 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gamble[edit]

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

probable hoax; no source found for this person -- MightyWarrior 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a hoax. The "Sir" part gave it away as that makes it quite easy to check. Remember that this is a notable hoax though. It survived for over a year! MartinDK 11:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hoax. --さくら木 11:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 5 non-wiki ghits, 3 of which are on the same website. unverifiable. MER-C 11:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Baloney. --Folantin 11:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WTF? 18th century and playing HOCKEY? Trash, please bin quickly. Moreschi 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, but not necessarily a hoax. The hockey bit is just silly vandalism. Unless someone can verify and expand upon his military service and/or knighthood, the subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO Deli nk 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very likely a hoax; people weren't gonged for their work in human rights in the 18th century. The concept barely existed! Nothing on Google Scholar and only Wikipedia mirrors, etc. on Ghits. He wasn't knighted by George II or III according to my hard copy references; the article asserts that he was only alive during those sovereign's reigns. Also, unlikely an 18th century man would have been hounded to death for homosexuality -- even Rochester wasn't. --Charlene 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a hoax. --Oakshade 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Acanthite[edit]

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

Fancruft Neyuws 11:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable fan game, no assertion of notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, only 268 ghits, unreferenced, verifiability problems. MER-C 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per KFP. (Is 'per' transitive?) shotwell 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. --- RockMFR 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. -- K yo cat^meow! 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MER-C. Unlike Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, which recieved some attention from the mass media for it's general premise, this RPG Maker game does not in any way meet the notability guidelines in WP:SOFTWARE. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 22:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put the sword in it as it's not WP:PCP caliber, coming from the project itself. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletachu, I choose you fangame, the end. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another fangame, another AfD. DarkSaber2k 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per above--SUIT 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andre (talk) 06:43, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Lexham[edit]

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

Article has almost no content, ~~non-notable place.~~ There is already an article on round-tower churches, and this adds nothing Lurker ^oi! 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote to speedy keep as the article has been expanded so that it now covers a village rather than one building Lurker ^oi! 12:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 12:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTABILITY, Some topics are considered of inherent value for inclusion without the assertion of notability, such as cities, villages, lakes, rivers, and mountains. --Oakshade 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more information about the community of East Lexham itself, as described at http://abstuk.co.uk/uk/east-lexham --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much of an exclusionist as I am, I think it is pretty well established that cities, towns, and villages, no matter how small or obscure, are notable. And, as small communities go, this isn't a bad article - it has an interesting church, with a picture. --Brianyoumans 19:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real town/village. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 00:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have clear precedent for articles on localities. Eusebeus 00:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons cited above; very clear precedent that all towns, villages, etc. are notable. Certainly needs to be expanded, however. --The Way 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Locality article. Please see List of cities in the United States for example. --Moreau36 20:31, 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 as non-notable song. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nel Cimitero di Tucson[edit]

Nel Cimitero di Tucson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable song from soundtrack of a film that doesn't have an article, either. Lacking notability manifests itself in the fact that there is nothing much to say about the song, and most of the article is about the film and another song that samples it. And that it's sampled in "Crazy" does not really make it notable in my opinion, either. Plus that part is already covered in the article on "Crazy" anyway (where the information is also sourced, and not designated rumor). Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because a supportive film article is nontexistent, plus notability problems and source issues. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 18:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V - crz crztalk 21:00, 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, I think it's clearly a hoax, no point in perpetuating this -- Samir धर्म 01:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron J Von Habsburg-Lothringen[edit]

Baron J Von Habsburg-Lothringen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

non-notable minor aristocrat. Claimed position in line of succession to the Monegasque Throne false according to wp article since accession of Albert II. Fails WP:BIO for 'royalty' - WP:ROYAL - even if that weren't true. Hornplease 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I completely forgot: comprehensively fails WP:V. Hornplease 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is the most intellectual minor royal I know and he does a lot of charity work both in and out of Austria. He is often mentioned in the Court Curricular.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.254.64 (talk • contribs) who also vandalized the nomination and removed the AFD tag from the article.

Delete per WP:V. Looks pretty dubious, like his being a Baron while his (unnamed) father is still alive, and he doesn't seem to fit anywhere into the family tree: Otto von Habsburg#Family Life and Template:Austrian Imperial Family. -- Fan-1967 13:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, the character has been entirely made up. The sources given do not point to anything relevant, and furthermore, my own attempts to find something on the subject have turned up nothing. Whilst there are Habsburg-Lothingrens in line to the British throne as claimed, none are named James, and none were born in 1989 (and they are perhaps excluded due to being Catholic. --New Progressive 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author thought of that one. He claims this kid was baptized both Catholic and C of E. Fan-1967 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only neither of those denomination practice rebaptism, one of many things that is dodgy about this article. JChap2007 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about a member of hereditary nobility/royalty needs to mention who the person's parents are in order to be verifiable. If this is a real person, the article can be re-created later if he turns out to qualify under WP:ROYAL. --Metropolitan90 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Thanks Hornplease, this was something that I was meaning to nominate for deletion myself a few hours ago but didn't get around to. If it becomes obvious that there is no opposition to the deletion of this article (likely because there are no accurate sources to support it) then I would that request another admin enact the WP:SNOW clause here; there's no reason to perpetuate this nonsense any further. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified and failing WP:ROYAL. JChap2007 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BTW, the WHOIS for the IP's editing this article comes back as registered to the "SOCIETY OF LICENSED VICTUALLERS". Maybe someone in London can give 'em a ring, ask them if they have Baron Von Habsburg in a tin, or something like that. Tubezone 01:12, 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 speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft. MER-C 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBAwire[edit]

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

Contested speedy as in one form was very spammy, has been changed since, but still very advertorial. Also a question of web notability? Bubba hot ep 12:22, 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 Hahnch e n 01:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart[edit]

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

The entry is all about his games with next to nothing about him. The only piece about him is about his participating in flamewars and a link to provide evidence for this sparked a 13month+ editwar.
Neither Derek Smart's game development history nor Derek Smart himself seem to be noteworthy(or even talked about in the entry). The article has a massive edit/revert war history that still continues and this has turned the article into an uncyclopedia style parody of referencing.
Lastly, it doesnt talk about his role in development, it talks about the development and the games themself, how the games were critically received and how often they changed publisher. In fact, it reads more like a page on 3000AD(the company) than it does Derek Smart the person. Bastion 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Sure the page has problems, it is likely to cause revert wars and it contains a lot of off topic material. But I don't see how that can be a reason to delete an entire article. The piece contains information on a notable guy, let's keep it. Sander123 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information does it contain on the PERSON, and whats particularly notable? --89.100.1.161 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not appropriate for AfD in my opinion, geez, does anyone use cleanup tags any more or are articles being AfD'ed for having too many references now? What sort of personal detail do you want? Height and weight? The guy is an independent games developer... this means he mostly writes the games himself (despite the grandiose CEO titles), so development history of those games is perfectly relevent to the article. Smart has been mentioned in games magazines for years, undoubtably notable, albeit controversial (but once again, that's not a reason to delete). --Canley 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying a politicians entry should have a year by year analysis of what happened in their government, regardless of if it had anything to do with the person specifically.

Again, my problem is for a bio entry it has absolutely nothing on the PERSON ITS ABOUT. If he's so notable, why does the wikipedia page on him have pretty much nothing about him? It reads like a thinly veiled critique on the games he developed and his companies relationship with developers. It doesnt even mention his age or where he lives, nevermind marriage/family - Just "In the year XXXX Battlecruiser had this happen to it" over and over and over. --89.100.1.161 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is new! Someone who wants the article deleted because it doesn't have enough personal trivia, and it has too much referenced assertion of what makes the person notable! --Canley 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Smart used to be one of the most well-known developers/designers in the world. The article also has 38 citations, almost all from relible sources. If you have a problem with an article's content, try to improve it, but don't nominate it for deletion. -- Kicking222 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the citations are almost universally about negative press on his games or 3000AD litigating someone else. Just because it has reliable citations, doesnt mean the citations have any relevance. --89.100.1.161 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while an interesting solution to the edit war, the article isn't too bad... Addhoc 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not yet given an opinion on the content of this article but I can't resist this opportunity. Smart is infamous in the gaming industry for his bad behavior, e.g., allegedly beating up a coke machine, suing publishers, wild unfulfilled promises, and insulting customers. Writing about this goes against WP:BLP or at least is difficult to negotiate. That coupled with sockpuppetry and pushing personal agendas, it is an edit war without end. WP has some most excellent articles on very controversal subjects that I was just admiring, e.g., Charles Darwin, Intellignet Design. This article is no where near that calibre. I'm convinced that the WP process can work but really is an article really worth the effort when it's on a game developer of mediocre games, at best, i.e., marginal that it meets WP:BIO? I say that this is both an interesting solution to the edit war and a good idea. Bill Huffman 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; consider a move. I don't see a very strong case for Mr. Smart meeting WP:BIO and unlike Addhoc I think the article in it's current form is utter junk in respect to what a biographical article should be, but it is rather exhaustively sourced (moreso than many articles here). Still based on the current version of the article it almost belongs at a Battlecruiser Game Series article with a redirect from Derek Smart because while it is a rather good article about the game series, it isn't a very good article about Derek Smart. A move doesn't require deletion though.--Isotope23 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously his games are notable enough to keep, (with multiple magazine articles and reviews about them) and given his personal involvement and association with them, I'd say that he himself should get an article. He's done several interviews, and I recall more than one magazine article that talked about him more than his games. That was several years ago though. Any concerns about vandalism and such, while valid, are not grounds for deletion, though they may support other action. FrozenPurpleCube 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find independent print references to him. I started looking at the websites listed, which are of unknown reliablity, and got tired of the spam and getting stuck in websites which did not permit the back button to return to Wikipedia. Edison 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, He's been interviewed in CGW and there was another piece recently in PC Gamer. And of course there's always a bit of writing in the various magazines whenever he releases a game. Ehheh 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I read an article elsewhere [[31]] and came to Wikipedia to find out more about Derek Smart. He's pretty notable in the gaming industry. I don't think that a "bad" article should be grounds for deletion. 159.153.129.39 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Designer of notable game (for good or bad reasons). The references appear to satisfy notability. --Oakshade 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wonders about the identity of our fair anony... Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dear nominator, please don't bring cleanup issues to AfD, as AfD Isn't Cleanup®. Current state of the article is not an adequate reason to delete the it. As for notability of the person in question, I can't complain; being a lead developer of several computer games and being a highly controversial figure in the Internet discussions means he's OK by me. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is no doubt that Derek Smart is notable, the man is infamous for designing one of the most hyped games which bombed on release and is also notorius for engaging in the longest running flame war of the USENET, a google groups search on "Derek Smart" [32] yields a astonishing 53,100 results which alone is probably enough reason to say the man is noteworthy/notorious to be included in a wiki biography. Another reason would be that user Supreme_Cmdr has been alleged to be Derek Smart himself, now how many wiki biographies can claim to have regular editing by their own subject!Kerr avon 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not Derek Smart. That was already debunked. Plus, you were the ONLY one who kept claiming that it was in fact him. After numerous warnings about that, here you are once again spouting the same rubbish. As if your numerous attempts at tainting the article and casting him a bad light was not enough. Get a frigging life dude. WarHawkSP 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite a few like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is another example of what is wrong with Wiki. Someone who has no knowledge of the person, nor the article (no contrib whatsoever) can roll out of bed and decide that it should be deleted. Not to mention the ludicrous reasons stated. For good, better or worse, Derek Smart is one of the most written about game developers of our time and is one of the most prominent indie devs left in an industry that has given way to the fast buck. As a game developer myself, IMO, the article is perfectly valid and the edit wars were perpetrated by Kerr and his friends who have tried (and FAILED repeatedly) incessantly to taint the article with unfounded nonsense. WarHawkSP 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible single purpose account, User talk:WarHawkSP/Special:Contributions/WarHawkSP has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Kerr avon 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Derek Smart is one of the most written about game developers of our time", This is the most totally ridiculous megalomaniac thing I may have ever read. :-) So it looks like a third single purpose account has been created, Supreme_Cmdr, WarHawk, and WarHawkSP? Does WarHawkSP mean WarHawk-SockPuppet? I thought that creating sockpuppets was against WP rules? Special:Contributions/WarHawk Special:Contributions/Supreme_Cmdr Bill Huffman 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per above. -Interested2 22:59, 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, copyright violation. I could have saved myself all the bother :-) Guy (Help!) 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronto Software[edit]

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

Deleted in January by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronto Software, re-created in October, not a G4 repost. Three accounts have worked on this article, four if yo include the original creator before deletion, and not one of them has a single edit other than to this article and linking it in various other articles. There are no cited sources, the company has a few clients but all apparently mid-market (i.e. not Fortune 500 or anywhere close). A couple of hundred employees, it does not appear to be listed on any stock exchange either. I call WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, under CSD-G12 (copyvio) and thinly disguised advertising (CSD-G11). Demiurge 13:43, 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 14:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevis Networks[edit]

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

Doesn't really assert significance and reads very much like advertising in parts. – Gurch 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting WP:CORP Guy (Help!) 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it does not sufficiently establish notability. Note, however, that the creator and main contributor to the article is making solid contributions to Wikipedia in a variety of areas. JonHarder 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Turning Back (Christina Milian Album)[edit]

No Turning Back (Christina Milian Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a rumored album to be released in 2007. The only mentions of it I can find on Google are either derived from this article, or as a rumor on a couple of blogs. So, unsourced, unverifiable, speculation about a future event. Donald Albury 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced crystalballery. Extraordinary Machine 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but get rid of the fake track listing, the fake image and the fake title. Retitle the article Christina milian's 4th Studio Album.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.88.74.254 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, needs verifiability and reliable sources. Xtifr _tälk 01:27, 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 keep. Kimchi.sg 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Age of American animation[edit]

The Golden Age of American animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

original research Sqcom 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — Sqcom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I took a look at WP:OR and as far as I can tell, the article doesn't violate the policy. Could you please point me in the direction of what part of WP:OR the article violates? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article gives several sources. Recury 14:16, 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 except BodyPump. Requests for reliable outside sources to establish notability have not been answered. I'll close BodyPump as No consensus since the quality of the sourced research article has not been discussed, but it can be renominated for AfD if question about notability remain. ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPM (Les Mills Fitness Program)[edit]

RPM (Les Mills Fitness Program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable fitness programs. One of these was tagged for speedy deletion, but since "nn-program" isn't a speedy criterion and there's a bunch of these articles, I figured I'd bring them all here for ultimate decision. Also being nominated are:

BodyPump

BodyStep

BodyCombat

BodyAttack

BodyJam

BodyBalance

These are all programs under the Les_Mills_International fitness plan. With such little content in them, I don't believe they're mergable. Metros232 14:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. What is not spam, is original research. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All should be deleted as mere advertisement. No evidence of being notable. Deli nk 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no !vote yet, but I can at least that these programs are quite widely used: I know of different fitness centra in Belgium where the "teachers" (how do you call these) have followed courses in BdyJam and so on in the Netherlands to be able (and certified) to give classes in Bodyjam and so on. So it exists, is used (internationally), ... but is it verifiable? No idea yet, so no opinion yet either. Fram 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the one that put the pages up less than 24 hours ago, and I'm just coming back to add further content, including pictures further information. There is some information about the Les Mills programs at http://www.lesmills.com, and forums such as http://www.lesmillstalk.com and http://www.groupfitness.org all of which are grassroots communities of people that do a series of fitness class and like to talk about them. That they are created a fitness program that comes out of New Zealand and which are done in 55 countries by 4 million participants doesn't make the "Body" series of fitness programs notable? Beardoc 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you, but to keep this article according to the Wikipedia policies, we need WP:V sources which are reliable, peer-reviewed and independent. Info by the company doesn't count (not independent), info by forums and so on doesn't count either (not reliable, because not peer-reviewed). What we need is articles published in independent magazines (so no advertorials or magazines owned by Les Mills or small magazines by fitness centra that have a Les Mills program), something like "Fitness International" or "Sport and Fitness" something similar (no idea if it exists, just trying to give an impression). If such general magazines on a sport / lifestyle spend (lare) articles on Les Mills and on the different programs, then they are worth keeping. If no one can give us such sources (preferably but not necessarily online), then we have to delete it. Fram 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input Fram - however, I don't see that this particular series of entries is should have the official guidelines apply to it, when with things like Hopkin Green Frog or I am not Canadian can exist in Wikipedia with only links to various websites and blogs (which WP:V says is not acceptable. Other entries seem to be allowed to continue, but get tagged with the "needs citations" tag. Why shouldn't these entries be allowed that as well, rather than getting deleted? Also, if I can find research that is relevant, then it can stay, right? if that's the case, then BodyPump cites research - why can it not stay? Beardoc 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy's reasoning above. --SunStar Net 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This sport is even known here in Lebanon. I found the listing of the songs in each version very useful. Anybody practicing this fitness program would appreciate such information. I tend to agree about the lack of studies even though I consider certain online ones to be legitimate (site history) Fact about fitness . In either case I would suggest some amendment especially for the parts with unproven claims
endurance can be built up in various muscle groups with more accuracy.
. This is a highly spread fitness program and wikipedia does need an entry about it. -- User:Hedgy102 12:04 29 November 2006 (GMT+02:00) — Hedgy102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep This information is useful for people doing research for fitness programs. Agree however that more research needs to be added so that this does not become Advertisement or Spam. This is similar to other Wiki entries such as Taebo, etc and is unique enough to warrant an entry. Citing reviews based on differences and similarities in different locations might also prove useful. --User:Juce 12:12, 29 November 2006 (EST) — Juce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Penguin Classics[edit]

Gallery of Penguin Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

appears to exist solely to hold a "fair use" gallery. Such galleries are not allowed under wikipedia policyGenidealingwithfairuse 14:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. JChap2007 23:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - page creator agrees too. See Talk:Gallery_of_Penguin_Classics. Keesiewonder 00:56, 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 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjas in Pyjamas[edit]

Ninjas in Pyjamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although this was kept during a previous flawed AfD, there's still no sources here for the article's tenuous claims of notability. If everything on this article was completely made up, who would know? And even if sources are provided, I still can't see that gaming clans are automatically notable for their own sake. wikipediatrix 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because as a professional electronic sports team, they are, in fact, notable. If you simply follow the link to their own website, you'll see that it's not all "completely made up". I will do some searching on the three websites mentioned in the first paragraph (Fragbite, Amped eSports and GotFrag). What was flawed about the prior AfD? Only two users voted for deletion and every other user provided reasons to keep which were not refuted. Where's the lack of consensus? --Habap 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply following the link to their website" doesn't provide proper independent third-party references on the article. The previous AfD was flawed for many reasons: 1. User:Splash voted in it and yet also closed it. 2. The VfD process wasn't properly completed as User:Mel Etitis notes. 3. None of the "keep" votes provided any policy or guideline-based reasons - they simply gave personal opinions like "I've heard of this group", "They're apparently very well-known", and "they are one of the best teams in their business". These are not valid criteria. wikipediatrix 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took some of the links provided by Flook in the last AfD and gathered some 2006 refs, so now the article does have some references. I suggest you re-read Flooks comments, as they actually did include notability information. --Habap 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also re-read User:Mel Etitis's comment on 2 August, which states I've now added it to today's page, and the VfD will have to run its course from now. It was not closed until 4 August (which is probably not sufficient time, but only two users commented in those 2 days (about 3 weeks after the article was tagged). He did not state that it was not properly completed (as it had not yet been completed), but rather that it was not properly formed and that it would run its course. On the other hand, I think the article needs to be improved beyond its current state, so this nomination is helping. --Habap 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, source links in the intro are all just main pages. -Lapinmies 15:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise good. Also, an article not being sourced is no reason for deletion, tag it and move along. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although lack of sources is not a deletion criteria, it CAN make the difference between keep and delete if there is no proof for the article's claim for the subject's notability. Your rationale of "Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise good" does not address the notability of the subject in any way. wikipediatrix 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the prior AfD, the notability is that they actually earn enough money playing silly games (prizes, appearance fees, endorsements and sponsorships) that they don't need "real jobs". There are only a few teams like this in the world and that makes them notable. Gaming clans in general are non-notable because they are fleeting collection of "internet friends" that are no more notable than someone's Tuesday bowling league. NiP, Team 3D, SK Gaming and Team NoA are long-lasting professional organizations that are focussed on being profitable business ventures, not random collections of friends who like to play. --Habap 14:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These guys have been covered by publications worldwide, as part of their CPL and WCG campaigns. They have won hundreds of thousands of dollars between them, and have major industry sponsors. Compare this to the "expert" undeletion of Girly [33], a webcomic which managed to become selfsustaining(WOW!) and was nominated for a subtrivial web award. - Hahnch e n 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's fine with the sources that are there. DarkSaber2k 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a cleanup. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legendary counterstrike clan, one of the most well known there is. bbx 08:04, 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 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desenrascanço[edit]

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

Delete per Wikipedia is not a Portugese dictionary, WP:OR and the fact that certain passages are simply rambling nonsense. MartinDK 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a "keep" proposal, if I thought that this was something known outside Portugal. Do we have a specfically Portuguese Wiki ? Or an article on Portuguese socio-political vocabulary ? Absent these, I can't see a place for this. -- Simon Cursitor 08:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a Portuguese Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 08:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely keep this article. In fact, both the word and the concept have been referred to in some conversations that I have had in English, at least in the UK. Moreover, the article is quite a complete entry. Filipe Josue 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Filipejosue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Demiurge 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be possible to write an article about this term, but everything in this article that isn't a dictionary definition is original research and unsourced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:20, 21 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOLLOCKS. Note that pt wikipedia has no corresponding entry [34]. Demiurge 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Although it's a widely known slang word in Portugal, this doesn't merit an article on the English Wikipedia (not even on the Portuguese Wikipedia would this survive). Besides, it's just a blatant original research, unsourced/unverifiable and complete WP:BOLLOCKS.--Hús ö nd 21:29, 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 consensus and rebuttal of claims about meeting WP:BIO.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Cleary[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show losing contestant. Now one of the models on Deal or No Deal, but since that's a non-speaking role, I can't see how it could be construed as notable. Mikeblas 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "reality" show losers. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to her website[35], she's appeared in The Break-up and The Lakehouse, as a record producer on Las Vegas, a lawyer on Prison Break, a flight attendant on ER, and so I'm inclined to weigh that in as notable enough to make the cut. These may be minor roles, but combined with ANTM, DOND, and such, I'm inclined to weigh in her favor. FrozenPurpleCube 15:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If she's acting, that might show notability. But we don't even know if she's had speaking roles. There are lots of nameless extras in movies and shows, and I don't think they're notable unless they're involved in the plot. Besides, there's no mention of these roles or their breadth in the article itself. -- Mikeblas 00:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I've not seen the movies/television shows in question, I don't know whether the parts were a speaking role or not. However, combined with her other work, but I think they give her enough of an edge that I'll go with the keep. Especially since it makes it hard to go with a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not notable" plus "I dunno" does not equal "notable". -- Mikeblas 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are only assuming "not notable" . However, she has reality show contestant, which is possible notability. Model, also a possible notability factor. I recognize that there are some ongoing arguments as to what constitutes notability in both things, but add in the screen parts, and she qualifies to me. FrozenPurpleCube 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample precedent for the claim that a losing game show contestant is not notable, see Kari Schmidt AfD, Bre Scullark AfD, Catie Anderson AfD, Sarah Dankleman AfD, Tiffany Richardson AfD, Jayla Rubinelli AfD, Brooke Staricha AfD, and many more. And bit parts in TV and film have never been considered notable. Xtifr _tälk 04:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But have any of those people gone on to anything else, like a DOND model, or roles in film and television? Been featured in Maxim Magazine? [36] It'd be one thing if she'd never done anything else, then I could support a redirect (and IMHO, all of thoe names above should be redirected), but having done other things, I'm reluctant to say anything but keep. FrozenPurpleCube 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were others that had some trivial modeling or acting credits deleted, e.g. Catie Anderson (cited above, had bit parts on TV). Xtifr _tälk 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'd put Katie Cleary well over Ingrid Vandebosch whose only claim to fame seems to be marrying Jeff Gordon. FrozenPurpleCube 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't guess how your PS is relevant. You can prod or AfD Ingrid's article if you don't think she's notable, and that has absolutely zero bearing on this debate. Meanwhile, I am indeed assuming not-notable; subjects on Wikipedia are not-notable until shown notable. -- Mikeblas 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd bring it up as an example where I think somebody wouldn't make the cut. Sometimes it helps to share one's position like that. Obviously, it didn't help you. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete being a losing game-show contestant confers no notability, and as an actor, she falls far short of the criteria in WP:BIO. Xtifr _tälk 01:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about "actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, you "conveniently" left out the first word, there, "Notable actors and...". And you completely ignored the following subsection which lists how notability should be determined. I see nothing to suggest that her career as an actor even begins to approach the criteria in WP:BIO. I have changed my vote from delete to strong delete after re-reviewing those criteria. Xtifr _tälk 04:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reality show contestents are inherently notable, and this one is even moreso. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that any class of person or object is "inherently notable" either implies a bar for notability which is so inclusive as to render the term meaningless, or is at odds with the primary notability criterion. Please cite some of the multiple non-trivial independent secondary sources of which this person has been the primary subject. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nod Mad Jack 07:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per Xtifr. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rklawton 02:20, 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 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of scripts without ISO 15924 code[edit]

List of scripts without ISO 15924 code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First, this article tries to catalog what things are not included in a given standard, and has no hope of ever not violating Wikipedia's prohibition against original research. Second, even if you could somehow write this article without, y'know, just making things up, I question whether it has any encyclopedic value at all. Lastly, the fact that the talk page is one long war between an expert and those conducting the original research, and that the quality of the writing in the article is hopelessly poor is just the icing on the cake. We should put this article out of our misery. Nandesuka 15:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to be very explicit about my opinion, for the reasons stated in the summary. Nandesuka 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the expert who has been arguing with those conducting the original research. I'm also responsible for the real ISO 15924 standard, and I would very much like for this misleading page to be deleted. Arigato, Nandesuka-sama. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The summation above is somewhat inaccurate. There is absolutely NO 'original research' involved in listing scripts which do not have a specific code in the ISO 15924 standard. You can point to the standard... see that there is no code there... and perfectly verify the accuracy of the list. This page exists because there is currently a problem with articles on 'writing systems' in Wikipedia. Specifically, it has been claimed that Wikipedia is in 'error' to refer to various sets of characters as 'scripts' or 'daughters' of other scripts... because the ISO 15924 standard would not define them that way.
This is, again, untrue. ISO 15924 does not define scripts. It assigns codes to the names of scripts. I have explained this before. I asked you to read the standard, which is online. The list contained articles about some alphabets like Arwi script, claimiing that they were not in ISO 15924. But Arwi uses the Arabic script. So it is in ISO 15924. Bah. I've explained this before, too. -- Evertype·✆ 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, when the words "character sets" are used to describe groups of symbols used in writing the angry retort is 'that is not how ISO 15924 defines the words "character set"'... which, while all true, is irrelevant. This is not the ISO 15924 website. This is Wikipedia. An encyclopedia written for ordinary web surfers. If you ask a regular person whether Klingon script is the same thing as Latin script they are going to tell you NO... regardless of what User:Evertype, no matter how expert on writing systems he may be, has to say on the matter. And it is those ordinary people who define what Wikipedia includes and how it is presented. This page attempts to clarify the difference between 'scripts' as defined by the ISO 15924 standard and things which are called scripts by ordinary people. It has not proceeded very far or had much cleanup because people have been attempting to get agreement and understanding on this difference before proceeding. Essentially this comes down to a question of whether Wikipedia is written to comply with the expectations of billions of ordinary people or to follow a recently developed and little known international standard. --CBD 16:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Your sentence "You can point to the standard, see that there is no code there, and verify the accuracy of the list" is exactly the sort of synthesis explicitly forbidden by the no original research policy. It is exactly the reason that I cannot write an article entitled List of monkeys and spaceships without ISO 15924 codes and expect it to remain in the encyclopedia. Unless you can find a "list of scripts without ISO 15924 codes" that has been published by a reliable third-party source, you are conducting original research. Nandesuka 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with your conclusion's about Original Research in this article. That is meant to apply to different things than this situation. Theories is the primary concern, and research data, not logical deductions such as this. However, I would say from this Unicode.org page that it is at least possible for there to be some sources. Might even be some more detailed books on the subject as well. There's probably also some coverage in books Furthermore, your example of alternative bad lists is a clearly absurd comparison, and may well be considered insulting. Monkeys and Spaceships have nothing to to with ISO 15924. FrozenPurpleCube 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You suggest that unless someone else has already published a list in a reliable third-party source it is original research to compile one here. I disagree. That definition of 'original research' would invalidate things like List of English words containing Q not followed by U, Zimbabwean national cricket captains, and most of the other featured lists. This isn't 'original research' because no 'research' is involved... only compilation of verifiable third-party source material which already exists. It is possible to cite reliable sources for various things which are called scripts... this is readily apparent from the fact that Wikipedia has referenced articles on dozens of them. Compiling those into a list is NOT original research. 'Original compilation', yes... original research, no. Because there is no research involved. --CBD 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, having looked at the page, and at its talk page, as well as going back further in the history of the dispute, I suggest the parties involved going through the steps in Dispute Resolution instead of deletion. It seems to me that there are some hard feelings involved. FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just tired of the whole thing. It started with people putting Arabic-script orthographies on the list; these are not scripts, but orthographies, the script being Arabic. I attempted to explain this, then stated getting called liar by Mr Conradi and told that I was engaging in original research by CBD. This is not interesting. I tried to explain things on the Talk page, but that didn't go anywhere either, not for want of trying on my part. Dispute Resolution? I'm not sure what you think the dispute is. I thought I was helping omprove this bad "article" by removing things that didn't belong on it. Bleah. -- Evertype·✆ 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, everything you said convinces me that you need to carefully read Dispute Resolution and consider what you want to do with the advice there in mind. You may feel one way about the article, other people feel differently. From the length and nature of the discussion, it's clear that it's getting nowhere between just yourself and others. Thus you should consider the advice DR offers you. If you are tired of this problem, then you may wish to consider leaving it for a while, though given your stated membership with the Unicode foundation, you may find that you can't just leave forever. Still, it might help to take a break. I understand that you don't want false information going around, but in this case, I doubt anybody will come to any lasting harm if you let it stand for a while. If that doesn't work, then you may wish to try mediation, or should that fail, arbitration. However, deleting this article will really do nothing for your on-going concerns. So, think about it, rather than just saying "Bleah" . FrozenPurpleCube 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evertype, on 'original research'; You argue that Arwi script "is not a script", but rather 'an orthography of the Arabic script'. This and similar views then get incorporated into numerous articles. Can you quote from ISO 15924 or ISO/IEC 10646 or a published text on the subject or a peer reviewed journal or... anything to back that up? If not, then yes... it IS original research. If there is no source that 'Joe Wikipedian' can go to and see, 'Yup this reliable third party source says that Arwi script is an orthography of Arabic' then that isn't 'verifiable' information by Wikipedia standards. That doesn't mean it isn't 'True' or 'logical' or whatever. Treating the thirteen Arwi characters which do not appear in Arabic as 'orthographic marks which do not indicate a different script' might well be the best way to view it. It might be the accepted "common sense" amongst experts in the field. But if it isn't written down anywhere then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. We don't define things. We report on how other people define things. --CBD 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all the gods featherless and feathered, will you please listen to what I am saying? The Arwi alphabet is not a script. The English alphabet is not a script. If you do not understand the difference between an alphabet and a script you have no business editing articles about writing systems. The English alphabet is an orthography of the Latin script. The Arwi alphabet is an orthography of the Arabic script. It is a mistake to call the Arwi alphabet a script. It would be a mistake to call the English alphabet a script. An alphabet is made of a set of letters which belong to a script. If I say that the letter B is used in the English alphabet, and that the letter B belongs to the Latin script, I am not engaging in original research. If I say that the letter ب is used in the Arwi alphabet, and that the letter ب belongs to the Arabic script, I am not engaging in original research. I do not have to "back up" a claim that B belongs to the Latin script, nor a claim that ب belongs to the Arabic script. It is simply a fact. These are coded characters. If you have some software, you can select a coded character an find out its Unicode name and hexadecimal code. You will find out that their names are LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B and ARABIC LETTER BEH respectively. The one is not Latin and the other Arabic because the standard says so. The standard says so because the one is Latin and the other Arabic. Good gods, man, this is Sesame Street. -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. When you say, 'I don't believe I've been particularly incivil...'... do you read your own comments? :]

I have listened. I understand. I am not so "obtuse" as to be unable to understand the "Sesame Street" logic that "ABCDEF" are part of the Latin script as you have implied. What you need to understand is that I do understand what you are saying, but I do not agree. You say above, "It would be a mistake to call the English alphabet a script." I disagree. I am convinced you are wrong about that. The reason I am so convinced is that I can open up my OED and see that it defines 'script' as an 'alphabet'... I can do a Google search on English script and find thousands of examples of people doing this thing which you say is a mistake. So... no, it is not a mistake. It is reality. That is the way actual human beings use the word 'script'. You don't believe that this is a proper / logical usage of the term and you may well have many excellent reasons for that... but it does not matter because that IS the way the term is used. As to, "I do not have to 'back up' a claim that B belongs to the Latin script"... again, no one has asked you to. Rather to 'back up a claim that β belongs to the Latin script'... or that IPA belongs to the Latin script despite using the character 'β', which does not. If you have a reliable third party source for either of those things then please quote them. If not... then clearly that is NOT verifiable. --CBD 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CBD, I have to ask have you got third party sources that, for example that Arwi is a script? Surely it is your responsibility to to find sources that show it is a script before putting it in a list of scripts, not User:Evertypes responsibility to find sources to disprove that fact. In any case, I would advise you seek comments form third parties to resolve this problem, as it does not look like you will manage it between yourselves. Adam Slack 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we have a reliable list of scripts, and a reliable list of scripts included in ISO 15924, then it is merely a trivial mechanical (albeit tedious) process to derive a list of scripts that are not in ISO 15924. Since no original thought is required, the resulting doesn't fail WP:NOR. All scripts which are not reliably sourced should be removed from the list, of course. Demiurge 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Since there seems to be no such reliable list of scripts, and the definition of script given in the article depends on "common sense" and "is commonly regarded as", this appears to be OR, at least in its current form. Changing my vote to Delete. Demiurge 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider carefully... does Wikipedia require that a complete list be published in a reliable third party source or that each element of the list be so identified? Look at the featured list, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Note that it references not similar lists, but rather English language dictionaries confirming that each entry on the list is indeed an English word. The same is true for most of the various other featured lists and IMO applies here... it is not necessary to cite an external authoritative list. Only to be able to cite reliable third party confirmation that each item on the list IS considered a script. Otherwise virtually every list on Wikipedia, including the featured lists, is 'original research' by this new definition of the term. --CBD 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Demiurge. --- RockMFR 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge changed to Delete. -- Evertype·✆

Delete contextless word salad. Edison 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does there exist a list of scripts? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a statement of a negative. This is like a list of all non-living persons or such. What is the point of the not-there? What is the significance? How can you define the include/exclude? A list of "nots" is inherently open-ended. Geogre 03:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if one assumes that the list of applicable scripts is infinite. That is not provably so. I suppose it could be eventually, but then, that could apply to Wikipedia as well. As it stands though, I don't think this article is the real problem. FrozenPurpleCube 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but is there a List of scripts, and how many entries would we be looking at? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should look outside Wikipedia. Then you'd find: [37] or [38] and who knows what someone in the field might have in published, non-web form? Not to mention this [39] which pretty much includes this entire list. FrozenPurpleCube 13:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written, the article does not adequately define "scripts", and no, there is no List of scripts (that link redirects to a different article). The entire talk page is one long argument that we should just apply a "common sense" definition of "script", where "common sense" seems to mean "whatever anyone thinks a script is today." Nandesuka 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is inaccurate. Your quotation is false... the appeals to "common sense" have not been made on behalf of the list of scripts, but rather on the claims that they aren't scripts. That they are scripts can be verified simply by referencing any of the thousands of sources which call each of them such. What other sort of verification is there? As to a single list... we currently have two pages, List of ISO 15924 codes by letter code and List of scripts without ISO 15924 code. Combining these into a single 'list of scripts' would, I think, be even more objectionable to Evertype. Or am I wrong about that? --CBD 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find the find claim that there are "thousands of sources that call each of them a script" somewhat at odds with the reality that not a single source is cited in the list. Nandesuka 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Each of them is an existing article on Wikipedia. Were they unsourcable that would not be the case. Obviously sources can and will be provided, but there would have been little point in edit warring to maintain them. The underlying claim that Wikipedia articles on writing systems must conform to the ISO 15924 standard, rather than actual usage, must be settled first. --CBD 12:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you do not understand what "conform" means in the context of ISO standards. But I do not know what your claim is. ABCDE belong to the Latin script. Wikipedia should not have an article about the "Albanian script" where the alphabet is really what is being discussed, and because ABCDE do not belong to the "Albanian script" but to the Latin. The arbiter of what the scripts are must be the UCS. When you type A, you are typing LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A as defined in the UCS (ISO/IEC 10646). If, therefore ا ب ج are found to be in an alphabet (as they are in Arwi) then, because all of those are Arabic letters, we know we cannot have an article called "Arwi script". Anything else is ignorant opinion. -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being disingenuous. You are well aware that while (as you say) ا ب ج are Arwi characters classified as 'Arabic' by UCS, چ ڊ ڍ are Arwi characters classified as NOT Arabic by UCS... and there are four characters in the Arwi alphabet which aren't coded by UCS at all. The fact is that ~30% of the characters in the Arwi alphabet are not Arabic... as defined by the UCS which YOU say should be the standard we follow. If the UCS classifies a significant portion of Arwi characters as being not Arabic (as it does) how can you cite it as an authority that Arwi IS Arabic?
No, no, no, no, no, no, and no. Will you PLEASE listen for once? There is a difference between a script and an alphabet. چ is ARABIC LETTER TCHEH. ڊ is ARABIC LETTER DAL WITH DOT BELOW. ڍ is ARABIC LETTER DDAHAL. These are Arabic characters. They belong to the Arabic script. They are not, it is true, used in the alphabet used for the Arabic language. They belong to the Arwi alphabet. TCHEH also belongs to the Persian and Urdu alphabets. DAL WITH DOT BELOW also belongs to the Sindhi alphabet, as does DDAHAL. All of them belong to the Arabic script. It was therefore incorrect for someone to make an article called "Arwi script", because there is no Arwi script. There is an Arabic script, which includes a great many characters. No single language uses all of them. The Arabic script is a superset including the Arabic alphabet, the Arwi alphabet, the Sindhi alphabet, and dozens more. This is unambiguous. It is precise. It is the accepted nomenclature in the International Standards Organization and in the Unicode Consortium. Articles about ISO 15924 or aboiut چ are about UCS charcters. It makes very good sense for us to make use of these simple and precise definitions for the benefit of users of this encyclopaedia. I don't see you offering a better framework. -- Evertype·✆

Further, the only reason we don't "have an article called 'Arwi script'" is that you moved it to Arwi alphabet. Last week. Just as you removed it from the list under consideration here and now seek to get the list deleted so it will not be re-added. That people have attempted to discuss this with you, rather than edit warring, is not an indication of the validity of your position.
I saw no argument for retaining an article about "Arwi script" as this does not exist. If it were to exist, then we would need to have articles about the English script, the German script, the French script, the Polish script, and the Swahili script. But there are no such things. All of those languages use alphabets, which are subsets of the Latin script. There is a difference between a script and an alphabet. -- Evertype·✆

Above you present the argument that UCS classifying some characters of an alphabet as belonging to a particular script means the entire alphabet belongs to that script (Arwi to Arabic in your example)... but by that reasoning the 'International Phonetic Alphabet' could be classified as the 'Greek script' (rather than Latin as you argue) since it contains Greek characters. There is no 'clear cut' standard here.
There is if one knows what one is talking about. It appears to me that you do not. I said, and I say, that the International Phonetic Alphabet is a Latin alphabet. That means that it belongs to the Latin script. It happens to borrow two letters from the Greek script. That does not transform it out of being a Latin-script alphabet, and it does not turn it into a unique script. -- Evertype·✆

Contrary to what you imply, the UCS does NOT classify which alphabets are 'unique scripts' and which are 'orthographies of some other script'. It codes characters and assigns them to ranges which are commonly associated with various alphabets.
This is simply incorrect. It is entirely incorrect. You do not know what you are talking about. I am one of the authors of the Unicode Standard. I have written over two hundred proposals to encode characters and scripts for more than a decade. Not a word that you say indicates to me that you have read, much less understood, any of the text of the Unicode Standard or of ISO/IEC 10646. Frankly I think you are embarrassing yourself. -- Evertype·✆

YOU are making judgment calls on what should and should not be called a script... with no consideration of whether people actually do so or not. Only your personal estimation of what is logical. THAT is 'original research'... unless you can point to where UCS or ISO 15924 or any other published standard says 'the Arwi alphabet is the Arabic script with some extra orthographic characters'. Which you haven't been able to do... because that isn't the case. Note that I am not saying you are 'wrong'... you could very well be promoting the 'most logical' or 'most popular amongst linguists' positions... but that doesn't stop it from being original research.
It seems to me that you don't really know what constitutes "original research" either. You seem to think that your stipulation that the UCS or ISO 15924 must make lists of alphabets and say what scripts they belong to means anything to anybody. Well, it does not. And what you say just here below shows just how little you understand how scripts are defined by the UCS. -- Evertype·✆

Above you mock the idea of an 'Albanian script'... but I can give you hundreds of references to such... while you can provide none showing that your view that it is NOT a script is supported by any sort of international standard (and before you start with UCS... ç is an Albanian characters not classified as Latin by UCS and ë is part of the 'extended' latin character set). --CBD 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first is LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA and the second is LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH DIAERESIS. In what way does this make them belong to the "Albanian script"? Oh, look. You used Google. What did you come up with? A Caucasian script, named Albanian, which is a different Albania entirely from the other one on the Adriatic, and which does not use Latin letters ç and ë, as the national language of Albania does. So you're telling us what? That you don't know how to use Google properly? Or that you still don't understand the difference between a script and an alphabet? -- Evertype·✆ 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype: "There is a difference between a script and an alphabet."

Oxford English Dictionary: "Script: A kind of writing, a system of alphabetical or other written characters"

Until you can understand that I do not accept the idea that your definition of terms should take precedence over the definitions in common usage we aren't going to get anywhere. You are going to keep accusing me of not understanding what a script is rather than comprehending that I understand both what YOU mean a 'script' to be and how the word is more generally used... I just give precedence to the latter. Your comments about the Google results on 'Albanian script' referring to the Caucasian script are again misleading. Some of them do, but many of them instead refer to the modern "Albanian script" [40] [41] [42]. You can say as loudly as you like that it is 'wrong' to refer to it as "Albanian script", but that will never change the easily provable fact that people DO. --CBD 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't going to get anywhere, then. Your first link is unimpressive, and simply shows imprecision on the part of the vendor. The second is to a PowerPoint essay and is hardly authoritative. The third contains the word script in its correct sense (the Turkish shift from Arabic script to Latin script [NOT to "Turkish script"]) and doesn't even contain the words "Albanian script". So much for your Google prowess. In the real world, the word "script" is not "generally used" as a synonym for "alphabet". I work with people from India who sometimes use the world "alphabet" where we would use the word "letter" ("In Hindi we have 35 alphabets"). This error is common enough, but it doesn't mean that the word "letter" is "generally used" for the word "alphabet". We have three words: letter, alphabet, and script. There are good, simple definitions of these which allow us to describe the world's writing systems unambiguously on the Wikipedia. In particular, in the context of ISO 15924 it is pernicious and misleading for you to insist that your "script = alphabet" view should be the one used in the context of articles on writing systems. And the definition you have taken from the OED you have misunderstood, because the script is the system not the individual alphabet. So the OED definition can be seen to be more congruent with the definition of this word in ISO and Unicode contexts, which are what we are using in the WS project. If you can't live with this, please find something else to edit than articles on writing systems, because you will get reverted. -- Evertype·✆ 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside your typically condescending tone... you apparently missed the part where the third link states, "I also find it significant that Armenian was placed closest to the new Albanian script in the table." As to your casual dismissal of the other two as 'imprecise'... that's the problem. The real world IS imprecise. People use the terms this way. That it is 'imprecise' does not change the proven fact that they DO. --CBD 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find the text "Albanian script" on the page at [43]. Or the word "Armenian" either. What is it you are trying to achieve? Insisting on imprecise terminology because it pleases you... in what way does this assist users of the Wikipedia to be able to distinguish between an alphabet and a script? They are distinguishable. The Arabic script contains the Urdu alphabet, the Persian alphabet, the Arwi alphabet, and indeed the Arabic alphabet. Each alphabet contains letters. There is a hierarchy here. A taxonomy which we need to use on the Wikipedia because it makes sense, and it helps users of the encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and refer to Dispute Resolution: Fails WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. There is no point in a list of negatives in this context. The larger conflict between the editors will still need to be addressed however, so I believe external input is needed for any consensus to be achieved. Adam Slack 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it is quite possible to verify that items don't exist in a document by consulting said document without it being original research, it becomes original research when you provide the definitions of the terms and the suppositions of where those items should be placed. The opening sentence, "Many character sets which are commonly considered scripts", sets the tone here. Who commonly considers them scripts? Yomangani ^talk 23:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: 'Who commonly considers them scripts?' - Answer... humans. Just like everything else on Wikipedia. We name our articles based on what people commonly call them... not the precise technical name considered most appropriate by specialists. That is and has always been the case. If thousands of people around the world call something 'Albanian script' or 'Klingon script' or 'Latin script' (meaning only the common characters found in our Latin script article rather than the full range so defined by UCS) then that is how we name and structure the articles. Should Latin script be re-written to state what we have in Unicode Latin or should it continue to cover how the term is commonly used? Should Bat be retitled to 'Chiroptera' because that is the name used by specialists or should we continue to give precedence to the name the majority of people actually use? How is it 'original research' to use common names and definitions rather than specialized and in some cases undocumented ones? --CBD 11:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it isn't stating an alternative common name, it is expressing an opinion which needs supporting with references. I wouldn't suggest renaming Bat, as I can provide many reliable sources to back up the use of that name for the genera, and reliable sources are all that is required here (as everywhere where a statement is the subject of controversy); this isn't covered by its absence from the cited document. If thousands of people use it, it should be easy to find sources, otherwise it is just your opinion. Yomangani ^talk 12:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But... it IS easy to find sources. As has been demonstrated when Evertype said above that English script or Albanian script were 'incorrect usage'... it was child's play to find the linked examples of such usage, and those were cases where he chose the item in question. How about Aramaic script? Not exactly difficult to find references. Edit warring with Evertype to maintain them in the article would not be worthwhile until this issue is settled, but it is obvious that references exist. If they didn't the pre-existing Wikipedia articles on these things wouldn't be here either. Some of the more obscure ones might be difficult to find English language sources for, but it is also readily apparent that the word 'script' is used to describe any and all forms of written communication (as per my citation of the OED). --CBD 13:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to "English script" leads to a "cursive handwriting" example of "script" which is not what we were disputing about. What we were disputing about is whether "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" can be termed "the English script". It cannot, which is why the Arabic letters making up the Arwi alphabet do not lead to a meaningful entity called "the Arwi script". Your citation of "the Albanian script" ONCE AGAIN leads to a true script found in the Caucasus which is unrelated to the Latin-script Albanian alphabet used in the country on the Adriatic. Your citation of the OED, as I have mentioned above, is being completely misinterpreted by you: And the definition you have taken from the OED you have misunderstood, because the script is the system not the individual alphabet. It is ridiculous that you suggest that we do not distinguish between script and alphabet on the Wikipedia. I don't think you're an expert in this area. What is it that you are trying to achieve? To defeat me in argument? I am trying to achieve a usage on the Wikipedia which assists people in knowing what the difference between a script and an alphabet is. You are not ever going to convince me that the terms are synonymous, or that there is such a thing as the "Arwi script". -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You already acknowledged above that there were various entries in the 'Albanian script' list DO refer to the modern 'Albanian alphabet'... after I provided direct links proving that. Thus, repeating the false claim that they all refer to the older 'Caucasian Albanian script' seems less than helpful. Likewise, while it is certainly possible to find results in almost ANY Google search that refer to other things it is obviously false that all of the Google hits on 'English script' refer to things other than the alphabet used to write the English language. Could we please argue the actual merits rather than such obfuscations? You say it is ridiculous to suggest that 'script' and 'alphabet' be used interchangeably on Wikipedia. I say that it is proven reality that they ARE used interchangeably throughout the world... and therefor believe that Wikipedia should follow suit. What 'I am trying to achieve' should be obvious... 'a usage which is consistent with the way people actually use the terms'... in conformity with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --CBD 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not "catching me out" on anything, CBD. I am quite tired of arguing with you. Wikipedia naming conventions do NOT oblige us to use imprecise terminiology or taxonomy where precise terminology exist. You have not established with any of your efforts that "Arwi script" would be appropriate to describe the "Arwi alphabet"; you have not addressed my specific description of the relations between "Arabic script" and the many alphabets which use it. You have taken pains to show that "script" may be polyvalent, but that does not mean that you are right and that your notions of article titling should prevail. I have taken this up on the Writing Systems WikiProject pages. There seems little point in continuing the discussion here. -- Evertype·✆ 18:58, 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 Deleted at author request pschemp | talk 22:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Cameron Reynolds[edit]

Dean Cameron Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notability not asserted; written works seem unpublished, films non-notable. Possible vanity: creator and only contributor is Spoon2319 (contribs) Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User Samsara,
This is user Spoon2319 creator of the Dean Cameron Reynolds page. I am in fact Dean Cameron Reynolds as well. I politely request that you reconsider the nimination of deletion of the mentioned page as the reasons you cite for deletion are not entirely accurate. With only a little research it is easy to see that the work has been published, if you google the name Dean Cameron Reynolds you will see that published work appears on the Mosaic Literary E-Zine, as well as the fact that I have been involved in production work at the Barley Films animation company. And if further proof is needed I will happily send you copies of the Watermarks Literary Journal in which his writing AND artwork have been published as well as an article and photograph of myself in the Irish Times. The Watermarks Literary Journal is the printed companion of the Moloch Literary E-Zine which you are welcome to investigate. And finally, under the Wikipedia article guidelines themselves, I will quote:
Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
which is found in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
I am an full time animation Lecturer in Palmerston North, and due to the nature of the networked animation community it is important to have information of this nature accessible to those who you do business with in other parts of the world. I politely request that you reconsider your stance, and perhaps remove the nomination for deletion. I feel that the guidelines of wikipedia are clear, and that with proper research it will be easy to see that the article has relevance.
Yours Sincerely,
Dean Cameron Reynolds

Delete Nice article, nice animation, but... he's a fledgling college professor who has produced some unheralded animations. Come back when you have a better claim to fame than "my film was seen by someone who won an award". Wikipedia does not host CVs or homepages. --Brianyoumans 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO Scienter 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO non-notable person. pschemp | talk 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Brianyoumans. Edison 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As its creator I have attempted to remove the offending article, but its title remains. If you or the other editors know how to remove the title as soon as possible, then you have my authority to do so. Thank you for your time, and apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Sincerely,
DCR

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delian Slavov[edit]

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

Self-promotion of non-notable person. The user have spammed Bulgarian Wikipedia as well, even after the page was deleted by community vote. He is also reincanating through sockpuppets (Opera) and various anonymous IPs just to have his CV in Wikipedia. The interested people can see the full list in my userspace on bg.wiki. Goldie (tell me) 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Injinera 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Darsie 19:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Scienter 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Edison 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 00:37, 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 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bay State Rock[edit]

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

Delete One line advertisment for a radio show. Needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theichibun (talk • contribs) 13:39, 21 November 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Scienter 20:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Edison 20:59, 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. Proto::type 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Groks[edit]

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

Delete Adds nothing to Wikipedia as this page gives no information about the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theichibun (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 November 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable podcast and radio program on stations across the country. 65,000 Google hits. Guests include leaders in all branches of science. Edison 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is such a notable thing, then why the short article that tells me basically nothing about it?Theichibun 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no information. Also, I fail to see notability. It's a podcast. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 18:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNotable radio program. It is syndicated on radio stations across the country and in Australia. Notable guests include Nobel Prize scientists and authors.

Keep This IS a notable radio show. Of course, I'm biased, since I produce the show. ;) I didn't start this wikipedia entry for my program, which suggests that there are several people who believe that the show IS notable and worth posting in the wikipedia. I've been reluctant to expand on the brief article by the original posters. But, since the main criticism seems to be that there is a lack of information in the article, I have expanded it to include more information. Tigerchuck 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge the necessities into KALX. It would be notable if it were "the first to", but it's only "among the first to". ~ trialsanderrors 08:41, 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 copyvio per Chubbles. This should have been speedied. Redirect can be set or not at editorial discretion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Indian War of Independence[edit]

First Indian War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a POV fork of Indian Rebellion of 1857 Paul B 12:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect I agree completely with Paul B. The name of this article is a POV political invention even before you get to the content. The article should be replaced with a redirect. Anything in it worth keeping can be transferred to Indian Rebellion of 1857. Man with two legs 12:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There's a spot in this article where it says "click for more details". That makes me think it's been plagiarized. And indeed, here it is: [44] Chubbles1212 18:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as copyvio per Chubbles. Edison 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Chubbles1212. Also note that there is no need for redirect, as First War Of Indian Independence already redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857. utcursch | talk 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indian Rebellion of 1857. Zarbat 05:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect move anything relevant across and delete the copyvio/POV--Jackyd101 15:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect toIndian Rebellion of 1857. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indian Rebellion of 1857. By the way, there has been many wars of Indian Independence even before 1857 Doctor Bruno 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect; this one is a speedy. --Orange Mike 16:26, 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 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Wetzel[edit]

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

Delete. No demonstrated notability. One book on a small, print-on-demand house. See related discussion of publisher and editor in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood discussion. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a print-on-demand house. He is also famous within the chaos magic community. --Tsuzuki26 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply: Immanion is print-on-demand (POD), as confirmed by the editor of the book in his comment on my talk page ("IP, while being a POD"), and as detailed in the other AfD link I provided above. I assume you have read this information, since you have participated in both discussions. The POD status is also demonstrated in the link to the books page that says of the book, "Stock: Unlimited" --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Okay. But how is this a disqualifier? I've seen the book on store shelves before, as well as Taylor Ellwood's. --Tsuzuki26 04:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply:"It's not a print-on-demand house" is the reason you gave for keeping the article. I was correcting that. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment In that case, I will change my reasoning to "What is wrong with that method of doing business, and what does it have to do with notability?" and reiterate that he is famous within the chaos magic community. --Tsuzuki26 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply: the proposed criteria for notability of books. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see nothing in there about print-on-demand publishing. What are you referring to exactly? (And sign your comment, please.) --Tsuzuki26 07:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO Deli nk 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails under WP:BIO --Orange Mike 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Insufficient independent sources to establish notability. Edison 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn per WP:BIO Eusebeus 01:01, 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 as lacking sources and assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Vayne[edit]

Julian Vayne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for creating this - IP's can't complete the AfD process (no ability to create the discussion). The article does not demonstrate that the subject satisfies the notability guideline for biographies. -- 70.59.246.27

This is the same for Joshua Wetzel, Ray Sherwin, Phil Hine, Jaq D. Hawkins, Jan Fries, Lionel Snell, and Peter Carroll. -- 70.59.246.27 02:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you register for an account so you can start these pages yourself. Your concerns will be better addressed and probably taken more seriously if you are not working solely under an IP. Also, please say whether you recommed to Delete or Keep the article. I assume from your comments you advise Deletion, but you'll need to state that explicitly. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If edits by unregistered contributors are viewed contemptuously, the problem is with the perception, not with the IP editor. That little rhubard aside, it's fallicious to suggest that a nomination must include *'''Delete''' or somesuch to be complete. This is a discussion, not a vote, and 70.59.246.27's wishes are quite clear enough. - 152.91.9.144 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. And good points. Sorry if I came off annoyed. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of several books for sale on Amazon. The best selling has sales rank of 185,000 out of the 4 million or so they sell, which is not bad for a specialized work. What does that equal in sales? No cites to show notability otherwise. Edison 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To include this person on a list of notables within the heading Chaos Magicians, including "founding Fathers" Ray Sherwin, Lionel Snell, or Peter Carroll, would be a gross miscategorization.

Perhaps a heading "People who have written a book, and would like to be notable... someday?"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard couper[edit]

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

There is nothing in this article that asserts the notability of the subject, so it has been nominated here. SunStar Net 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO Deli nk 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Scienter 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Edison 21:20, 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. When the debate is primarily ten people, each accusing everyone of bad faith except themselves, it's hard to pick out cogent points. The consensus is a little weak, but does favour delete (particularly as there is some very fishy (sockpuppetty) 'keep' votes). And, as the discussion has become less about the merits (or lack) of this article than into an incoherent shouting match, the main reason for my going with deletion is the fact that the article is a collection of external links, thus failing WP:NOT, anyway. Proto::type 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE[edit]

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

Note to closing admin: Use of Sockpuppets Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elalan
I wish to recuse myself of this vote. Due to lingering doubt raised in this case, this the *right* thing to do. Trincomanb 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has now been moved to Attacks attributed to the LTTE. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have moved the article back to the original title pendidng the completion of this AFD. Renaming the article before the AFD is complete was not in good faith. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the article has nothing to do with the AfD, and in fact, might actually have helped the keep side in the debate, as its new title more properly reflects what the article is, and therefore less a reason to delete it as POV. There was absolutely no bad faith in such an article rename. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You completely bypassed the AFD, which is a key concept of Wikipedia, and decided to rename it yourself without taking into account the views of other editors. If you want the article to be renamed, cross out your "delete" vote and change it to "rename to ...". Please do not change the name arbitrarily. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is wrong. No AfD is needed to rename an article. If it's named wrong, it should be renamed. Period. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment As i kindly asked you before, please refrain from changing the title.If you have a question about using the phrase,terrorist attacks, post them here,and let others know about it. Also,i would appreciate if you do the same in every single article given at the bottom by user-snowolfd4.If you don't, you are only showing your biases.You cant have two opinions about a same issue,can you ??--Iwazaki 20:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't changed it again (well, I did, but just to correct a mistake in someone else's move). As for your concern about my hypocrisy, it's a false argument. First off, nobody has said this will not be dealt with elsewhere. I just don't have the time to deal with everything right now. We can take this one day at a time, kay? But even if I didn't want to correct the problems elsewhere, that wouldn't be any evidence that I'm wrong here. If I beat my wife it wouldn't make it any less true that you shouldn't beat your wife if it came out of my mouth. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*comment This is what i call duplicity ! What ever the excuses you have given here, does not justify your present attitude,which is very much biased.If you,as i said, are genuinely interested at removing the phrase "terrorist attacks" ,you should do it equally in every article.By picking up this article alone,and neglecting the others just shows your duplicity.--Iwazaki 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete I wanted to mention this is littered with allegations that are misrepresented as facts. Many of the incidents show no proof LTTE had any part in it, but its completely misrepresented in the article. In addition many incidents rely on a Sri Lankan government letter sent to the UN citing incidents. Its hardly a credible source of information and could just be propaganda material. Title is hardly NPOV. There is hardly verifiable evidence to indicate and prove its "Terrorist attacks carried by the LTTE". Elalan 23:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment title is fully WP:NPOV.And it is obvious to every one that, LTTE has carried out all the terrorist attacks mentined in the article as many have pointed here. There are more than enough proof here !! And, if you are questioning any incidents here, i would like to take them one by one and discuss with you.And remember, LTTE have never denied most of the stated terrorist attacks --Iwazaki 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current title "Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE" is certainly POV. LTTE has not accepted responsibility for all of these attacks. Most of the accusations have been made by the Sri Lankan Government, and it is very likely that their version is full of exaggerations. Merging the article content under the title "Attacks attributed to the LTTE" is a better solution. utcursch | talk 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I totally disagree.The article is not only WP:NPOV it is also one of the best referenced article i've ever seen in wikipedia.Your case against this is very weak, i would rather say.Most of the accussations comes from every corner of the world,And most importantly from the people who suffered from their brutality.And to claim,since LTTE dont admit this must be false,is infact your POV..And the fact that, LTTE never denied most of this accusations should be noticed here.please tell me ,why would they never denied these allegations when they were first made ?? Since most of these terrorist attacks were carried out in mercenary type or in suicide mission, unless dead people come from their graves,one must say we never know the absolute truth of this.But what we know is, LTTE have every reason to terrorise sinhalese and even muslim people.They want sinhalese/muslims out of their mythical homeland by any means..And even this,article actually do not carry every single terrorist act of them.The list is,sadly huge!!.And none of the attacks were exaggerations by GOSL,and i would really appreciate if you can come up with any. finally i would like to state, that this article has not violated any of the wiki policies.And arguments against are "amazingly weak",and simply can be put into various "logical fallacies". --Iwazaki 14:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article lists impeccaable sources for each attack. It is one of the best referenced articles on wikipedia Dutugemunu 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apart from SL govt sources, not much of credible information is available on this issue. The ones which are clear like Rajiv Gandhi Assasination and others do not need a template at all, as they are all isolated incidents which might not actually be categorized as one template! Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean one article. RaveenS 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentnay..I think he means some template,somewhere.hence above opinion has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion,and should be directed to the proper place. --Iwazaki 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:Civil and let the user answer his/her question. ThanksRaveenS

Please be WP:Civil enough not to issue meaningless warnings to fellow users.And please be WP:Civil enough not to take my right to challange and answer comments made by others.thanks--Iwazaki 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the articles have only GoSL sources and some of them have reliable sources. Taking GoSL's view on this matter is not acceptable as it is a party involved in the conflict. there is no need for a separate template for this at all, as it is completely POV. With regard to Iwazaki's civility....nay, let me not explain it to someone who has a great record of 'civility'. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment again engage in a logical fallacy of "Since GOSL are invlove in this crisis what they say cant be true"..If we apply this logic, then we must dismiss every source which comes from tamil sides,LTTE or NOT, because they too are a party of this crisis.Also, we should ruled out any comments made by the norwegians too.As peace keepers they too,are involve in this.So,we can simply reject their claims using the above logic.Finally, we may end up with nothing,since the above logic simply ruled out "a good portion of the sources". And speaking of civility, its amazing that those comments comes from someone"who deleted his own talk page just to cover himself up".someone who uses words such as "goons", "stupid" ,"kid" ,"immature" to describe fellow wikipedians and yet hasn't done a single apology at all!!

--Iwazaki 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and merge salvagable contents with Notable attacks by the LTTE. This article fails WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:POV. Thanks RaveenS 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you clarify why it fails all of those? The article claims it is based on several secondary sources (aside from the government letter, perhaps). The incidents I checked seem to have a reliable source. shotwell 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot comment - This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of sources for this article. A careful look at the reference list shows Amnesty, BBC, HRW and other international organisations. Some of the details are sourced from Government of Sri Lanka which is a legal government AFireUponDeep 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete: Blatant POV fork with most source emanating from GOSL letter to UN. Salvadge remaining content with notable attack by the LTTE. Don't get me started with title. Trincomanb 02:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recused myself of this vote due to lingering doubts based on false allegations raised by snowolfd4. Trincomanb 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. The reason mentioned for deletion is invalid. If title is NPOV, move it to Terrorist Attacks attributed to LTTE. The article is neither WP:NOR, nor WP:POV -- it cites sources for each incident mentioned. It doesn't fail WP:V either, as all the sources cited are online, for everybody to verify. The article has 115 sources from letter to UNHCHR, 19 from BBC.co.uk, 8 Amnesty, 4 from Frontline, 2 from University Teachers for Human Rights, 2 from state.gov and 1 from CFR, ICT, CNN, PRIU each. There are 9 sources from a tripod page, which should be removed. When the article is moved to Terrorist Attacks attributed to LTTE or merged with Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, I don't think there should be any problem with citations from Sri Lankan Government's letter to the UN. Even now the article mentions: "Please note that since some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, it's contents may or may not be neutral." utcursch | talk 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sri Lankan govt letter to the UN is not a WP:RS. That is the biggest problem with this article. Where is there reliable. neutral, authoritative source to indicate this is a "terrorist attack." Hence 115 events have to removed to start with In this it claims "LTTE" did it. It has no substantiation to make this claim. A Sri Lankan govt. letter to UN is hardly of any substance and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Are we starting to publish everyone's letters on wikipedia ? The way it is worded, there is apparently proof the LTTE did, but this is complete misrepresentation coming from clearly a propaganda letter. The article is the boldest example of WP:POV, it relies on what is a propaganda source to advertise that these events were true. Where it relies on other sources of evidence, its got show that its "a terrorist attack". If that wording is not in the source then its WP:NOR (original research). Elalan 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment So,elaln,if LTTE didnt do it ,who did ?? obviously it wasnt done by the "ordianry tamil people",was it ?? It is obvious that from all the sources given here(which you seem to have missed) these brutal acts of terrorism were done by the LTTE.And even LTTE, has not denied of these cases, esp none of the masacres carried out by them..And in case you havent noticed, there is a clear verdict against prabhakaran on his involvement of central bank bombing jail sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwazaki (talk • contribs)

I am not saying that LTTE carried out all these attacks. The article Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE has "attributed" in the title (and no word like "terrorist" in it). Plus, there is the notice: "Please note that since some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, it's contents may or may not be neutral.". By mentioning these incidents, we are not saying that LTTE committed these acts. We are just saying that they were attributed to LTTE by some organizations/governments/news channels, and we are providing sources. The reader may check these sources and exercise his/her own judgment. Moreover, the article can be expanded to include LTTE's denial of these attacks or information about possible involvement of non-LTTE parties in these attacks. utcursch | talk 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is question to utcursch: In all fairness, does the Sri Lankan government letter to UN constitute a reliable source ? Please see WP:RS. If its not, it cannot be referenced in the encyclopedia and hence all those entries have to be deleted That is explicitly stated. Elalan 23:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment The statement that are attributed to the Sri Lankan government letter to the UN also failed WP:V, since its a self-published source of dubious reliability by the government. There is specific explanation set in stone by the Wikipedia rules on this. Please see it. Elalan 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment LTTE did carry out every single attack stated in the article and a lot more not in this article.And these are acts of terrorism.And even in the wikipedia they have an separate template titled infobox terrorist attacks [45].Which is work of an administrator named Tariqabjotu.So the word "terrorist attacks" is not POV at all according to wikipedia.You may have a case against calling them terrorist,but not against the use of "terrorist attacks"..And if you have any questions regarding cited incidents, i would like to take every single incident and discuss with you.And,finally, i would like to tell you that the ,LTTE have not categorically denied most of the massacres stated in this article. --Iwazaki 19:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentReply to User:Utcursch, Terrorist attacks attributed versus Notable attack as a tile. If the former, then each and every attack has to fit the definition of Terrorism page, attacks aginst military instalations cannot be included. If the title is latter then the attacks have to be notable ingoring the troubles associated with terrorist attack definition, hence my preferance to Notable attacks by the LTTE. ThanksRaveenS 04:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Zarbat 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the same reasons given by utcursch. shotwell 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dont think the this page should be merged into the Notable LTTE attacks page. The combined pages would be too long. We shouldnt be looking to create massive wikipedia articles which will take hours just to go through Melissahutchison 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)— Melissahutchison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. utcursch | talk 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please do checkuser on this profile. This profile also appear to be sock puppet used to vote on this page. Elalan 04:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dont see a justification to delete this page. I agree with the suggestion to change the title to "terrorsit attacks attributed to the LTTE". LovesEverybody 10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)— Melissahutchison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. utcursch | talk 13:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentPlease do a checkuser on this profile. This profile has only been used to vote to keep this page and clearly appears to be a sockpuppet. Elalan 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notable ones are already in the notable attacks article, the rest are unreliable, as the source is solely the Sri Lankan government. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of questions to the above user

Have ever read this disputed article, before making above conclusion ??

could you please point out the unreliable terrorist acts in this article ?--Iwazaki 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason they're unreliable is that for a great many of them, their source is solely the Government of Sri Lanka. The GoSL has certainly been known for lying about these incidents (indeed, it has even been accused--in some cases likely justifiably--of blaming its own soldiers' crazed attacks on the LTTE). Therefore, reports of LTTE attacks whose only source is the GoSL are inherently unreliable. Third party reports from reliable neutral parties is an absolute must for such an article. This cannot be remedied with this silly "some of the incidents were contained in a letter authored by a Sri Lankan government official, [so] it's contents may or may not be neutral" note. If they're not known to be reliable, they cannot be included. To work the way that is being suggested with such a note is like writing an article of fiction and having it pass muster because you note at the top "this article may be lies". Sorry, but we obviously cannot work that way. In addition, the entire article is POV. The reason we have Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE is twofold. First, is so that only attacks that are notable enough for an encyclopedia are included. Are these attacks notable? If they are, they can go into that article. If not, then they don't belong in an encyclopedia. Secondly, it is properly named. Simply "attacks" and "attributed". This entire article is WP:POV and a violation of WP:RS. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, i would kindly request you not to change the topic of this article.This is a clear violation of wiki policies and i call this vandalism. Good , now i'll get back to your points.Though you have defended your side of the story here, you have mysteriously failed to touch the questions for which i was expecting an answers from you.In case you haven't notice them,let me phrase it again

could you please point out the unreliable terrorist acts in this article since you seem to have a fair good of knowledge in this matter, i would like you to point out incidents, you think ,are not done by the LTTE. then you have said ,"The GoSL has certainly been known for lying about these incidents (indeed, it has even been accused--in some cases likely justifiably--of blaming its own soldiers' crazed attacks on the LTTE)".

could you please provide any evidence to back up your claim Otherwise, i have to ignore this as a red herring made by you. The whole accusation of yours is based on your strong criticism of the letter sent by the GOSL. Except calling it unreliable, you have done no effort to examine the details written in the letter nor your have questioned any single incident there.We have given evidence and you have given no counter evidence at all !!! so, i believe ,rightly so, you have engaged in a logical fallacy and things written here by you is nothing more than your POV. Hence the article, is valid and totally NPOV and should be kept.--Iwazaki 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, whether the claims in the letter are correct or not, the source of the letter is biased. I will not provided evidence for what cases are not true. That's not the point at all. If the source is unreliable (and it is, since it is clearly biased to the pro-GoSL point of view), it cannot be used. If what's contained in the letter is correct, you should have no trouble finding it printed in an independent reliable source. The sooner you understand that this is how we write an encyclopedia, the sooner we'll be able to get on with actually writing it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply could you please tell me why the source is biased ?? As i said before, your argument is totally based on the fact that "since GOSL said so this cant be right",which is a logical fallacy,and totally irrelevant .Since we have given evidence, why dont you give evidence against it ?? Your failure to give any credible source only strengthen my side of the story,and nothing else. Since we have given our evidences, it is your turn to find "reliable sources" which questions the validity of the GOSL letter.unless you cant find any contradictions in the letter, all your claims would become rather pointless. talking about terrorist attacks, i have found an excellent article which gives a very good picture of LTTE suicide missions(which is called terrorism in english).[46] So, the LTTE have carried out more terrorist attacks than,hamas and hizbulla put together,this is what the experts says. Hence, the article should be under the title "Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE"..And the article is fully WP:NPOV --Iwazaki 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, this is the last time I'm going to bother responding to you, since you seem to be intentionally ignoring my actual point. There is no "evidence" that this time the GoSL is lying. However, it has to be accepted that the GoSL is not a reliable source on the LTTE because it is so involved in the conflict with that group. That's the whole definition of reliable source - a source that is neutral to the issue. It is not "our" turn to find reliable sources to question the validity of the GoSL letter. It is your responsibility to show what is an inherently unreliable source (a source so close to one side in an incredibly heated conflict) is actually the truth. Basically, both the LTTE and the GoSL have to be excluded from your fact-finding mission (except where they are reporting on their own actions, and even then they have to be examined carefully). Both sources are obviously suspect to a great degree, to the point where we cannot accept them. If what GoSL is claiming in the letter is truthful, then there will be no problem finding reports from neutral parties on the same incidents. So go searching for the obvious truth. This is an encyclopedia--don't expect your articles to be handed to you fully-formed by Sri Lankan officials. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* comment It is somewhat disappointing to see, even in this last comment,supposed be the last response to me,you have failed to address any of the points directed at you. You have failed to point out a single attack,which couldn't be pointed out to the LTTE. And surprisingly you still question the validity of the article !!! When its people are dying from the acts of terrorism,and there are over 200 such acts carried out during 1980-2000,GOSL had every right to made complains to the relevant international bodies.Every incident stated in the article is carried out by LTTE for obvious reasons,ethnic cleansing..And for my knowledge they have even not denied most of them !!

if you are claiming GOSL sources are biased, you should prove it..And provide counter arguments for it..Just because GOSL is engaged in a war against LTTE, we cant dismiss every single claim made by the GOSL.We should take, every case carefully and analyse it thoroughly before making any conclusions.And in this case,you havent done any of it.Also the article has given non government sources too,but you still want to delete it,and merge into a different article,which says nothing about terrorist attacks !! so i have the feeling that this isnt about evidences after all. Finally, except for giving classical examples of logical fallacies,such as Appeal to Ignorance,you have done absolutely nothing to justify your position here. --Iwazaki 21:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. As a fellow editor had already stated,this is one of the best referenced article in wikipedia. All the incidents are definitely carried out by the LTTE and so far i have failed to see any proper argument against this.And for the merging, i strongly oppose the proposed idea by fellow editors.As for reasons i have given under comments..Also, bear in mind there is clear ethnic cleansing going in north and east against sinhalese/muslims and LTTE historically have shown that they are willing to do anything to expel those communities from their mythical land of eelam.finally i would like to add the following link ,where you can see one of the survivors of the most brutal terrorist attack ever carried out against the Buddhist monks in the history of the world.[47] I had the opportunity to met ven monk, and even to say this was not carried out by LTTE, is an insult to all the 32 monks who perished in that incident.Please try to stop your tears, when you look at this [48],i say this because i couldn't. --Iwazaki 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The nomination is flawed in the 1st place as POV is not a reason for deletion. As per WP:DP

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.

This article has a wealth of information that is not contained anywhere else in Wikipedia. As pointed out, what is wrong with using statistics of a national government about dead citizens? What is the nutrality dispute there? When someone is killed, it is the duty of a government to go through the incindet and file a report about it.

The word "terrorist attacks" is not POV and is widely used in Wikipedia. As Iwazaki pointed out, there is already a template called Template:Infobox terrorist attack and a number of other articles including
List of terrorist incidents

List of terrorist attacks in Canada

List of terrorist incidents in the U.S.

List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom

List of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia

Terrorism against Israel

List of Terrorist Attacks Against Israel Before 1967 etc. etc. If anyone disagrees with the use of "terrorist" in this article, they should nominate all of these other articles for deletion, to avoid duplicity in their conduct.

Also, a look at the articles that link to the terrorist attack template shows how many notable attacks have been labled as terrorist attacks. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing article starts off

The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist attack on April 19, 1995, in which the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, a U.S. government office complex in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was destroyed, killing 168 people.

9/11

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States on September 11, 2001.

And the article should not be merged with the notable attacks article as that primarily focuses upon the military attacks by the LTTE and the terrorist attacks article focuses on the Terrorist, ie attacks against civilians. Also, as this article is very long already, and as per WP:LENGTH we strive to break apart long articles due to readability and compatability issues. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You're claiming that because there are other articles which go against Wikipedia guidelines that that's evidence that this article should also? Isn't that some sort of fallacy? As for the wealth of information the article contains--is that wealth of information encyclopedic? Does Wikipedia have a List of murders in Los Angeles article? As for POV not being a reason for deletion, if the article cannot be anything other than POV, that is, if the entire issue is POV from the start, (the way this article is named is undoubtedly POV that cannot be allowed to stay), then, yes, POV is a reason for deletion. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other articles prove that there is a wide consensus within the Wikipedia community that the word "terrorist" is acceptable. Just because you don't like it that does not mean that it shouldn't be used. Again, if you dispute that, you do not have to go through the articles, simply nominate them for deletion as they contain the word terrorist in the title. Your need to delete this article ONLY and your unwillingness to take engage in any other article with the title terrorism or the "terrorist Attack" template clearly displays your bias and duplicity in this matter. And we aren't talking about 1 or 2 murders here. If we listed all the murders carried out by the LTTE we'll get a really, really long list. Only the notable incidents where at least about 4 or 5 people were killed are listed. Comparably, there is an article subsection list of serial killers in the US List_of_serial_killers_by_country#USA. -snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh, goodness gracious. First off, those articles don't prove anything--you'd have to also know how many articles that could use the word "terrorist" but don't in order to get any idea whatsoever of how widespread and accepted its use is (plus, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia out to publish facts in a neutral way, and if something's wrong with 95% support, it's still wrong). Secondly, I explained quite well on your talk page why I am currently dealing with this article. And I did not say I would never go deal with the other articles, which, BTW, might not require deletion--if they're only POV in their naming, then they just need renaming. This article, however, is POV in its entirety, using GoSL propaganda as its main source, which is clearly against WP:RS. As for your argument that this article only includes notable incidents, do you mean it only includes incidents that the people maintaining Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE don't think are notable? There's already an article on notable incidents, so why you'd be arguing that this article is about notable incidents, I do not know. Clearly, it's a POV fork from Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE, an attempt to include as many "incidents" as possible, including all sorts of incidents that are reported by the GoSL and the GoSL alone, because those level-headed individuals maintaining the other article didn't want it turned into the huge POV mess this one is. This article certainly doesn't make any mention of notability, and, in fact, someone from this AfD has been adding it to article "See also" lists as Comprehensive list of terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elalan (talk · contribs), RaveenS (talk · contribs) and Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) -Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment and i'm not surprised at all.Even if those arguments are "logical fallacies" you still stand by them.And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template

further,according to experts,LTTE have carried out over 150 suicide missions during the 1980-2000 period, which is more than Hizbullah and hamas put together !! And,even to call these are not done by the LTTE,is an insult to all those who perished there,just like the innocent monks here,

[49] --Iwazaki 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Those arguing for deletion have not presented credible evidence to support their claims. The LTTE is considered a terrorist group by the US goverment, therefore,

attacks on civilians can obviously be called "terrorist attacks". Hence, this article is totally NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.241.205 (talk • contribs), has four edits in total, and, if you take a look, hits return in the middle of responses like only Iwazaki has done in this AfD (most of his edits have been cleaned up by me, but check the one just above).

Comment: Iwazaki, you can't vote a million times, vote once and respond to other statements as comments. This is truly uncivil to drag in the names of Wiki editors in every comment you make like the one above the previous fake vote of yours. I am not looking at deleting a template as you have mentioned above, but it is more likely that you are getting very frustrated and losing temper because the pages you cried out against including the State terrorism template are all being confirmed to be perfectly WP:5P So respond to points in a fair and civil way than just cry out and hit out at everybody against you.

Inspite of repeated requests and warnings you still haven't changed, not just with me, but with anyone who has a stance against that of yours. Instead of trying to understand that they are talking about a context, you think they are out to get you and prove you wrong. I am posting this very specifically because you have been too much for quite some time, meddling with my talk page, posting uncivil comments and the list is endless and all the warnings and messages in your talk page testify it.
I'm specifically making this point here because you have dragged in my name for no reason here as italicized: And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template and this is totally uncivil. This kind of a hitting out behaviour is definitely uncalled for and it definitely violates Civility norms. Please let us talk about the subject matter than hitting out at fellow editors and trying to drag in their traits. I sincerely hope you understand. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment totally unrelated.Dont make this AfD a soapbox.pls show me where i have voted million times ?? If you dont, I want you to take back this ugly accusations directed at me.And for the rest,since nothing carry any importance,i prefer to ignore you completely.

--Iwazaki 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*note to administrators The user Sudharsansn is engaged in cheap personal attacks on me here and he is taking the attention away from the topic.If he has any problem with me, kindly ask him to take it to the appropriate places and NOT HERE

--Iwazaki 12:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expected this from you, your usual words and terms like Soapbox, nothing new. I have pointed out to your uncivil ways in my posting when you actually dragged in my name in one of your comments in a very maligning way as italicized: And its good to know, like Sudharsansn ,you also want to delete a certain template. This is totally uncalled for and to begin with that is what diverted focus from the topic to this so I am only strongly telling you that this is not how it is done here. Let us get back to the topic and though I know that you will once again want to have a trivial last word, I refrain, unless and otherwise warranted. I am sure the admins who are reading this understand completely. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment glad that i fulfil your expectation.In case you havent noticed yet, we are discussing about an article here, not a template.SO please take your tirade somewhere else,becasue its totally irrelevant to here.

--Iwazaki 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep: Per Iwazaki (talk · contribs) and Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs). ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪ ^(Ŧ) 11:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The LTTE is recognised as one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the world, classified as a terrorist organisation by 29 countries including the US, and the LTTE has has been responsible for the most heinious and brutal murders of women and children in Sri Lanka. The relevant article has extensively referenced sources for every quote. There is a group of people with vested interest like the LTTE sympathisers who want to expunge this information in order to whitewash the LTTE hence their objection to this article in the wikipedia.

The Government of Sri Lanka is a reliable source WP:RS, for the main reason that as a government the statements that it(Goverment of sri lanka) makes carry a inherent sense of responsibility. A goverment's comminiques are carefully considered statements which are reliable sources which do not contravene any WP:RS guidlines.
It should be noted that the main people unhappy with sourcing from the Government of Sri Lanka are LTTE sympathisers or antigovernment forces who are quite happy to use pro eelam websites such as tamilcanadian.com, tamilnation.org, Tamiltigers.net as sources for there potentially libelous orchestrated attack on the Sri lankan goverment via the wikipedia artcle State Terrorism in Sri Lanka yet cry foul when a Goverment source is used to substantiate a LTTE attack.
I wish to make a strong point, if the government of sri lanka cannot be used as a reliable source, then coversely none of the pro eelam sites or LTTE sympathisers and LTTE fronts like tamilnation.org can be used either, and thus would justify a swift call for a strong deletion of articles like State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, which use multiple pro eelam sites (ex : "Sri Lankan State terrorism by Tamiltigers.net") to substantiate their allegations.
This article uses multiple cited reliable sources like the goverment of sri lankas official communiques, amnesty international's reports. US state department's reports etc to highlight the ghastly murders including the killing of Buddhist monks done by one of the most murderous and ruthless terrorist groups to appear on the face of this earth which pioneered the concept of suicide bombing. It is NPOV and should be allowed to stay as a article in accordance with the wikipedia policies. There should be no whitewashing allowed for a classified terrorist group like the LTTE.
I also urge the people who question the statements made in this article to highlight the relevant sections that in there opinion are disputed so we can discuss and find other sources to substantiate the claims if needed.
I urge the ruling admin to strongly consider the importance of this article, and the neutrality and the mutiple reliable source used to substantiate the claims and continue to let this article exist.
It would be interesting that a similar debate regarding the infinitely more libelous and defamatory template against the Sri Lankan government called Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka ended up in a "no consensus" ruling [50].Kerr avon 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Kerr avon, those articles/templates should also be deleted as being based on unreliable sources. This AfD is going to end up as no consensus as well, since the majority of the votes, on both sides, are based on emotion and not appeal to Wikipedia policy, and there are sockpuppets (both confirmed and not) on both sides.

Now, as for your statement that WP:RS says that since it is from government it is reliable, that is a misrepresentation. It says that "Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public." This is clearly a case where the government is far too involved as a partisan in the conflict to be considered reliable. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:24, 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Holliday's Saloon[edit]

Doc Holliday's Saloon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod; no assertion of notability and completely unsourced. Just one of many bars in the East Village shotwell 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:47, 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 19:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Spent Out[edit]

All Spent Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cannot find any reference to this show and another editor claims it is non-existant. No references and non-notable either way. shotwell 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't turn up anything on imdb, very dubious. Demiurge 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ref to such a show on google. Show not in WF's imdb entry, not in any of his obits. Show not in IMDB. His 'co-star' is not in IMDB. I recall no such show - very improbable that there was such. How to fake entry: copy half a dozen lines about some obscure 70s sitcom from somewhere else, change title, create article, change actors, and a few details, add to Wikipedia. Throw this joker off the site forever! 88888 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxes are why I tag everything I find without references with {{unreferenced|article}}. Articles remaining thus should be deleted. Edison 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find your logic hard to believe - how would anything ever be added if it has to be in Wiki or IMDB first! I added this article BECAUSE there was no existing entry for it. Mary Clark is my aunt and playing Joan Spent was the only significant role she ever had. The article is based on her personal account and the titles were obtained from her scripts. She herself said how cringe-worthy it was, but great fun to make.

If you really don't trust this article then I suggest that you do your own research by contacting Anglia, rather than just rubbishing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.225.196 (talk • contribs)
Comment unfortunately we can't do that, because it would be original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia rules. Nor can we accept your aunt's personal account — we must have a reliable source. Demiurge 11:56, 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 keep, real village. Kusma (討論) 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost, Scotland[edit]

Lost, Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete. Not notable (from the article: "population: less than two dozen" Johnsonsjohnson 16:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it is a small place does not mean it is not notable. Given that there is a BBC report on it, [51], it is real enough to keep. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What then makes it notable? The article does not state any notability. Surely it can't be the somewhat amusing name? Are there articles for every place in Australia where someone has stolen a sign with a kangaroo on it? (Or do people not steal such signs?) Johnsonsjohnson 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if there are any reputable news reports on those places, we can talk about them getting an article. FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable towns of any size warrant their own articles. 23skidoo 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost is a village, not a town. Johnsonsjohnson 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about named location gets in, regardless of population size or fame. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - Evv 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable, referenced, geographical location - therefore notable. Please feel free to point me to a policy, guideline or precedent that says otherwise. Yes, I think all cities/towns/villages/lakes/islands/etc with a verifiable gazetted name should have an article, stolen street signs or not. --Canley 17:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NOTABILITY, Some topics are considered of inherent value for inclusion without the assertion of notability, such as cities, villages, lakes, rivers, and mountains. -- Whpq 17:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just thought I should point out that the nominator is campaigning heavily to have Lost (TV series) moved to Lost (currently a disambiguation page). See Talk:Lost (TV series), consensus was not reached in the discussion. This may be an unrelated notability concern (Assume good faith, Canley, assume good faith!), but this makes me highly skeptical of the motive behind this nomination. --Canley 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, this seems very much like borderline disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, trying to reduce the list of items on the Disambig page to make the move argument seem stronger. --Maelwys 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP is quite clear about all towns getting an article, no matter how obscure. wikipediatrix 18:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: verifiable and referenced, and being occasionally newsworthy doesn't hurt its cause. theProject 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTABILITY does make the unfortunate and regretable concession that somehow every backwater non-notable town which may be folded up tomorrow can have it's article. I'm going to cite Wikipedia: ignore all rules and suggest deletion. This rule about in WP:NOTABILITY that every hole on the planet can have an article is a bad thing, and for the benefit of Wikipedia should be ignored. •Elomis• 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all cities are inherently notable, as WP:NOTABILITY says. Looks like this AfD is just to make a WP:POINT since he's trying to get the TV show Lost moved to Lost. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Towns are encyclopedic. Edison 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only to piss of a Lost fan. Recury 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some towns in Europe have been in existance longer than most countries. Leave it to be expanded by those in the know, especially as there are many other such articles on verifiable places on Wikipedia. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real town. Per WP:AFDP, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." No need to go against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT). --Oakshade 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason that was written by Oakshade. --Dezidor 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What the hell? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In an online encyclopedia where we don't have the kind of space limitations that traditional paper-book encyclopedias have, any place with a name is sufficiently notable to get an entry. --Serge 02:06, 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 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olu Ashaolu[edit]

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

Although well categorized, Asahaolu is not a particulalry noteworthy athelete, and wikipedia would be 2/3rds high school althletics if every high school athelete from Ontario to Brisbane was included. If O.A. becomes a major athelete later in life, it might be important. Cheers V. Joe 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. By the way you need to tag the article for AFD. Punkmorten 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also delete Brisbane ;D •Elomis• 19:57, 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 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HÉireann Óglaigh na Meirica[edit]

HÉireann Óglaigh na Meirica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An organisation that nobody has ever heard of, and a name that makes all Irish speakers cry Ian Cheese 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails to assert notability under CSD-A7. (also weeping at the grammar). Demiurge 17:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The very amateurish website is hosted on a free web hosting site. The grammar of the "organisation's" title is hilarious. Most Google hits for "heireann oglaigh" are for Wikipedia mirrors. I can't believe this is nearly a year old.

Delete as per Demiurge. Also, 4 google hits excluding Wikipedia. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not notable and likely pure invention (As emphasised - per nom - by the "organisation"'s title.) Guliolopez 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dppowell 19:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The title makes me cringe... --Kwekubo 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per murderous grammar. Snoutwood (talk) 04:52, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gotham city poem[edit]

The gotham city poem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James Wright did not write this "poem." The article is a hoax. Drygrass 17:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. I can find no evidence that there is a shred of truth in this entire article. The poem certainly isn't included in my anthology, either. The last section proves only that this person (or people) were quite determined to make the article last. Srose (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete garbage. Someone should look at James Wright (poet) too, since its entire introduction is trash. Danny Lilithborne 00:41, 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 no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Mission Valley[edit]

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

Non-notable shopping mall, with no reliable sources, and no indication of passing WP:CORP --Elonka 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or evidence of notability. More Westfield Shoppingcruft. Edison 21:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large, perfectly notable shopping centre, and yet another target of this tired vendetta. Quit disrupting Wikipedia and let the rest of us edit in peace. Rebecca 00:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per [52].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the content of the article. The reference cited by Bakaman might be notable if there was any indication that they were doing a good job before hand. Doing nothing in an area and then making a change is what often happens. Receiving an award for that is not notable. Without more facts there is a lack of notability established for this article. I could also support a Merge to somewhere other then the parent companies article. Vegaswikian 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, large malls are notable to the local communities as important social arenas. bbx 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please large mall with 1.3 million square feet in operation for almost 50 years is notable to me Yuckfoo 02:51, 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 Redirect to Two Dozen and One Greyhounds - Yomangani ^talk 23:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See My Vest[edit]

a one-time song on the Simpsons, entertaining but seems non-notable Lmblackjack21 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simpsoncruft. Not every song from The Wizard of Oz or Cats gets its own article, so why should The Simpsons be any different? wikipediatrix 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Two Dozen and One Greyhounds, the episode in which it appears, as it already provides pretty much everything in the current article anyway, minus the copyvio lyrics. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is pretty well organized, but I think it belongs in a Simpsons specific wiki (which we could then link to). Dall ben 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entertaining bit of Simpsonscruft, but non-notable, and the lyrics are copyvio. --SunStar Net 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect The song clearly does not need its own article; with that said, this is clearly a viable search term. -- Kicking222 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Lyrics are copyvio, anything else is covered in the episode. Redirect either to TDaOG or Montgomery Burns. SliceNYC 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Two Dozen and One Greyhounds. Danny Lilithborne 00:42, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hondo Lane Walker[edit]

Delete due to lack of evidence from reliable sources that subject meets criteria for published authors, as outlined in WP:BIO. Only possible claim to fame appears to be one poem published in a book that in itself doesn't appear to meet WP:BK. A Google search doesn't provide much either. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 22:25, 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 Nandesuka 14:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Filler[edit]

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

The term "movie filler" is not commonly used in that sense. As one can see through the discussion on the talk page, the article was written by the owner of the moviefiller website. I do believe that he acted in good faith but it is simply misleading to tell Wikipedia readers that this is a standard use. (Extra note: I believe that this is not quite speediable. I originally used a prod tag which was removed by the author, see talk page) Pascal.Tesson 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. While I believe the author is being honest on the article's talk page, he should be aware of WP:COI. Moreover, looked at objectively, the article is clearly just here to promote the website. In any event, it fails WP:NEO. JChap2007 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified by reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO (the definition of the phrase presented), WP:WEB (the website discussed), and WP:NOT (the list of films). That leaves nothing else, so the whole article should probably be deleted. Only about 5000 Ghits for the phrase "movie filler", so I don't think that it is in general use to describe something else that this article could be rewritten about. Too bad; I really thought that there might be something salvageable here. Heather 00:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulungi[edit]

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

As cited in the article, this is not a real place, but one invented by "The Onion." Creator removed prod. FisherQueen 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a fictional country which was the subject of a single Onion article is not notable. Demiurge 19:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~It may not be a real article, but Wiki does have a List of Fictional Countries, which includes Bulungi, and generally attempts to provide separate articles for all of them. If it was not notable, it would not be listed there. Merely being fictional does not merit deletion, as the many other fictional countries on this site prove. If it is deleted, you might as well delete the fictional countries list as well. Keep it. ~ JP

Doing this does not make Bulungi notable. That's just dishonest. Melchoir 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being fictional is not automatic grounds for deletion. Being a non-notable fictional country, appearing once in a joke article, is grounds for deletion. Additionally, most of the content here seems to be made up and does not appear in the original fiction, so it's OR. Fan-1967 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, OR. Melchoir 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I read the article too quickly and mistook it for a hoax, not seeing that the article acknowledges the country's fictional status. Nevertheless, I support deletion for non-notability, now that I've looked more closely. -FisherQueen 20:08, 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 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)[edit]

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is better suited for Wikinews--after some major editing, that is. Anthony Rupert 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised and added to {{CANPR}}, and I better say:

KEEP!! This article is not here for NEWS, it's a split from the Highway 401 (Ontario) article that is disgustingly long (as is the highway!); As I learn how to do this, in the midst of moving between computers....the initial posting looked terrible (look it up in the history scroll), and Mr Rupert (above) slapped on the Afd....That's all from me!!

Bacl-presby 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a split from Highway 401 (Ontario), due to excessive size of the said article. The split was discussed on the talk page and agreed upon. --66.82.9.55 20:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it isn't obvious to me what's wrong with this list, and the nomination above makes no sense to me. Jkelly 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletenot encyclopedic. Edison 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge back into Highway 401 (Ontario). Kirjtc2 21:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why the heck would this content be news, anyway? -- Zanimum 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well structured article about one of Canada's most important highways. Caknuck 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say Yes on Proposition 401: Keep This Article Well-structured, legitimately and agreed-to split from an already large article. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above (e.g. invalid news claim); also in keeping with WP:SIZE Dl2000 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
also... note precedents for exit list articles e.g. Exit List of Interstate 96 in Michigan, List of exits on Interstate 5

Delete pure, boring, have-we-reached-Kingston-yet roadcruft. Certainly don't send it to Wikinews. Eusebeus 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT; WP:V via WP:RS; apparent failure of WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, as per WP:NOT. An article on Highway 401 (Ontario) is fine in principle (though the current version also has travel guide elements at the moment), but this article is essentially a road atlas section or list. In addition, the sole source for the article (all the footnotes point to one website - look in the edit version of the article) is an amateur website hosted on AOL, which makes an unsupported claim to be based on official documentation[53]. This website seems to be operated by one guy[54].The webpage gives much detail but there is only one clear reference are provided by this webpage (for the quote at the bottom). Moreover, this source is only cited for a handful of information points in the article. It may be argued that the main article Highway 401 (Ontario) provides reliable references as the exit list was spun off from here. But it doesn't - the article has a collection of external links (references section is currently blank), of which there are two which have extensive detailed information that seem to support the exits table. The first is the AOL amateur site mentioned previously. The second is onthighways.com - a website run by university student who says "The content of this site is based both on Road Maps, and my own personal knowledge of the area."[55]. This key main source also fails WP:V via WP:RS/WP:OR. I don't see any other sources in these two articles supporting this exit list. Bwithh 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a list of freeway exits. It isn't a guide to heart surgery or an accounting of historical events that could be disputed. Most likely it was created by a guy looking at a map or taken from a website where the list was made from same. You aren't going to find books on this subject. And the likelihood of someone making up information on something as mundane as this is pretty slim. You might find yourself at odds with many other articles in the quoted WikiProject if you feel otherwise. 23skidoo 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Unfortunately, relying on amateur websites such as these goes against WP:V and WP:OR, which are core content policies: "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus."; "The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level." Bwithh 09:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's Official Road map of Ontario: [56] should suffice as a reliable source. I've cross referenced all of the exits, which are all on the map, except the Wonderland road potential exit is not listed -- Samir धर्म 01:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Main article on this major highway got too long, hence spinning out the content was entirely logical. --JJay 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of an established WikiProject, and as a spin-off created by consensus. 23skidoo 06:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many precedents on highway exit lists. Personally, I think they're encyclopedic. I think I have exits 375 to 721 memorized from the number of times I've driven it -- Samir धर्म 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As i am the founder of the Canada Roads Wikiproject, doesn't my vote count?Mitch azenia(7600+edits) 19:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have exit lists... why would this be news anyway? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it sounds like a traffic report. Don't they show those on the news? Anthony Rupert 02:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, should Toronto Maple Leafs be deleted because they're mentioned in sports reports? —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely weak reasoning. Iraq sounds like the news... does that mean we should move that to Wikinews too? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same thing, and you know it.

Also, if you were paying attention, I nominated the article for deletion because its initial version was so badly formatted that it was rather incomprehensible; that, and then it wasn't made clear that it was part of a WikiProject. When I learned that it was part of a project, you'll notice that I didn't say anything else about it deserving deletion. I even apologized. Anthony Rupert 10:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"News" and "exit lists" are not the same thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Similar articles exist for other major roads (I-5 is one that comes to mind), and I see no harm in keeping this one. As for the "move to Wikinews" nom...I fail to see the connection. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Exit lists are a useful encyclopedic resource. The only other possible fate I could see is merger back into the article on the 401, but the exit list is 35 kB long, which would bring the main article way over the rule-of-thumb of 30 kB or less. —C.Fred (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-95 exit list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--so, there was no consenus on I-95 edit list's Afd; how about here??....Moderators!!

And thanks for the apology, Mr Rupert; trust you accept mine! Bacl-presby 23:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 401 is arguable the most notable highway in all of Canada (along with the TCH and the Yellowhead). There was no consensus on the other AFD, so no precedence set. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway exit lists are valid content on a highway's article, but they are never encyclopedic enough in their own right to merit splitting out from the main article. And I'm simply not convinced that something that doesn't deserve its own separate article in the first place should be granted its own separate article just because a consensus existed to ignore the fact that the topic doesn't actually deserve its own separate article. For one thing, 32K is a guideline, not an inviolable rule which automatically mandates splitting out subtopics regardless of whether they merit separate articles in their own right or not. Splitting is not an "anything goes" proposition — there are things that are sufficiently encyclopedic topics in their own right to warrant splitting from the main article and things that aren't; a highway's exit list is the latter. But at the same time, Wikinews was a bad suggestion; an exit list isn't news. Merge back into Highway 401 (Ontario) and consider alternate ways to reorganize the article if the size is still viewed as an issue. Oh, and by the way, that's exactly the result that was obtained the last time this was split out — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, which actually makes this an instant CSD G4. Bearcat 00:18, 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 with a BFG. And Salt to be extra-sure. --humblefool ® 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skulltag[edit]

Skulltag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article about a source port of Doom. Supposedly a rather popular Doom port, but there's no evidence that it meets the notability guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE - there's no independent coverage of the software from reliable sources, it's not a core product of a notable developer, and it's not included with an OS. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, if this article were to be deleted, then articles such as ZDoom and ZDaemon would have to be deleted as well, under the same reasons. --Kurotsyn 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do it, since you want Skulltag gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.73.153 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because he's getting enough grief from this AfD and doesn't want 3X more? --W.marsh 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Skulltag entry gets deleted, I'll resurrect it. Every. Single. Time. So don't even try it, ""chuckles, no matter what bizarre grudge you've got against it. 4.246.217.13 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For situations like that, admins like to WP:SALT the page. So. Don't. Even. Try. To. Pull. That. Trick. Hbdragon88 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, did I make myself unclear? If the Skulltag article goes down, I'm putting it back up. Period. Salting would be so insignificant it doesn't even enter the eqaution. I'm not letting a perfectly legitimate entry get deleted because some dude named NeoChaosX doesn't like the subject -of- the entry. End of story.4.246.217.13 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make assumptions about my actions. I nominated this article because I felt (and some research confirmed) that this piece of software wasn't notable (I hadn't even heard about it until I found the article). And if you try to recreate the article if it's deleted, you won't be editing on Wikipedia for long. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making assumptions, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to get the Skulltag entry deleted because you've got some mindbogglingly crazy grudge against the piece of software. If you wanted to pretend you had a legitimate reason, you should have based your deletion request on a guideline that has ACTUALLY BEEN ADOPTED.4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that this grudge is a "fact". Hence it's an assumption. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between deductive reasoining and assumption. I did the former, thanks. 4.246.219.169 07:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Because you must be right and there's absolutely no possible reason why this article might be considered valid for deletion by someone, then it therefore stands to reason that he must have a grudge against it? I already told you that deletion reasons don't have to follow the existing guidelines. They're guides, not concrete policies. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Earth to Consumed Crustacean. Hello, Consumed Crustacean. Are you recieving? The fact that Neo's trying to get the entry deleted based specifically on the latest draft of a yet-to-be-adopted-and-may-never-be guideline that's currently under debate for being too vague and restrictive should make his reasons clear enough. His argument isn't standing on solid ground. It's standing on pudding during an earthquake. Why oh why would he try to get the Skulltag article pulled when his reasoning is so totally halfcocked? And why would he single out Skulltag when thousands of other software entries likewise "violate" the proposed guideline? Boy, what a mystery.4.246.219.169 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He can base his nomination on whatever he likes. If others agree with him (they have), the article can be deleted. You haven't even tried to prove that this is notable, instead you just poke at the nominator. vab -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making these sorts of threats isn't going to help make your case for keeping the article. Indeed, closing admins will often act in reaction to such threats and be more likely to delete an article because of them. I suggest you look for reliable sources which give non-trivial info about the game if you want it kept. Either that or find some other way to show it falls under WP:SOFTWARE. JoshuaZ 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Threats? What threats? I'm letting it be known what'll happen if the administrators somehow lose their minds and axe the Skulltag entry over NeoChaosX's personal bias against the subject matter. 4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that's called a threat. If this AfD results in the article's deletion, it can't be reposted unless it goes through deletion review. To announce that you'll just keep reposting it no matter what any administrator says is, indeed, a threat. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's -literally- not a threat by the very definition of the word "threat". Weird and wild stuff, huh?
How so? From the Wiktionary: A threat is: "an expression of intent to injure or punish another." To injure is: "To cause harm, especially physical harm to a living creature." Harm is: "Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune." Stop arguing nonsensical semantics and get back to the deletion, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think resurrecting a Wikpedia article that might get deleted on an unfair and completely insane basis constitutes as injury, punishment, and detriment, then you're a really scary person. Stop frightening me. 4.246.219.169 08:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any independent coverage either. shotwell 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Hbdragon88 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess that means that SLAX, GAIM, and many others should be removed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrisonHopkins (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heres another thing: That link isn't policy yet. It was PROPOSED. Meaning, it has no meaning. HarrisonHopkins 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— HarrisonHopkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It would be a disservice to the online Doom community to remove this page. This Wiki page makes a great reference for people who wish to see the differences between the online multiplayer ports. Skulltag is currently the most advanced multiplayer Doom port, with many extra features not found in other ports and this page help highlight those differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Can any of you dig up references from some reliable sources that would indicate the notability of this software? shotwell 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clear case of jumping the gun before a proposed policy is even approved. Why bother going through the trouble of this if the policy is rejected? -deathz0r 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Deathz0r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I see no reason why this shouldn't be kept. If this page was deleted, then why would any other source port pages be kept? Wouldn't this mean that all pages about Doom source ports should be deleted as well? Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, so it should have information on just about everything. I say keep it. If it's deleted, then that means that the pages on ZDaemon, Zdoom, etc. would have to go along with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.35.216 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems that Skulltag has been noted by outside sources. It'd say that's enough notability, except that I don't have to because the policy isn't even official. Why are here again? by Romero, programmer of Doom - Interview with Carnevil by Lutrov71, the leader of Team Visplane Overflow - Rivecoder 04:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Rivecoder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[57] "Doom - was voted the "#1 game of all time" in a poll among over 100 game developers and journalists conducted by GameSpy in July 2001" http://rome.ro/2005/12/happy-birthday-doom.html "and still going strong with Skulltag" one of Doom's main programmers thanks Skulltag for keeping his 13 year old game alive.

Keep I think one of the programmers for the #1 voted game of all time is a pretty good source. --Catoptromancy 04:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Google news has zero hits, and while a normal Google search gets a mid-sized number of hits, none appear to be from independant third party sources. The only two proposed so far are from rome.ro which is itself invisible on Google news and has an Alexa ranking of 303,003. This sounds pretty bad until we look at skulltag.com's 578,695 Alexa ranking. No sources + no notability = delete. 152.91.9.144 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V/WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the Skulltag entry isn't violating any policy, right? It's only "violating" a proposal for a new policy that might or might not be adopted sometime in the future(and chances are high for "not"). Which makes NeoChaosX's argument for deleting Skulltag a total fallacy. 4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and notability isn't clear cut. There are no set notability policies on things like this, they're just guidelines. They are suggestions. Any reasonable cause for deletion can be given, as NeoChaosX has done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe NeoChaosX gave a reasonable cause in some magical alternate reality, but here in this universe, his cause for deletion revolves around the entry "violating" a proposal for a suggestion that hasn't even been adopted yet and may never be. Even then, major sourceports of Doom are notable for a variety of reasons anyway, Skulltag being no exception. 4.246.217.13 07:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even proved that it's a "major" or notable port. You haven't given any reliable third party sources to back it up. Perhaps you should take less time attacking his view point, and more making your own? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" from WP:V, a Wikipedia official policy. Complain about that one, or if you can't, whinge about it with your chums at your forums. I saw the thread, so don't bother denying it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:53, 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 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Selling Female Recording Artist Ever[edit]

The Best Selling Female Recording Artist Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An article on the same topic was deleted in February (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best-selling female singer), but this page isn't a "substantially identical copy" of that one, so I'm listing it here. No vote. Extraordinary Machine 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't really see the purpose here and I'm not sure the ref is exactly a WP:RS. Beyond that this is a misnomer. "The Best Selling Female Recording Artist Ever" isn't a list of 15 performers; by definition it would just be Madonna (if you take the source as WP:RS, though looking at the history the list has changed without the sourcing changing) which could just be served with a redirect if kept. All in all, it's not well sourced, it's redundant, and even if moved to a namespace that reflected the article content, still doesn't serve much of a purpose.--Isotope23 20:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete "Artist" is singular, so why are there a number of artists listed? Edison 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following on Edison, "best" and "ever" also imply that this should be a list of one. If it's even encyclopedic enough to do so, at most a line can be added to the Madonna article to the effect that worldmusicawards.com called her the best selling female artist ever (or "OF ALL TIME", if you believe the article or have a crystal ball). Agent 86 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete echoing all the above. Eusebeus 00:57, 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 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubezilla[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. No sources. Allegedly a 1930's Japanese monster movie, but I can find no trace or hint anywhere of such a movie existing. Fails WP:V, likely Hoax. -- Fan-1967 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources confirming this Cubezilla movie character.--Hús ö nd 21:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1)Unreferenced "famous" movies may be hoaxes. 2) Complete bollocks: the Japanese testing nuclear bombs in 1936? Will reconsider if reliable sources are provided. Edison 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I thought the Japanese sci-fi/monster movies were a post-WW2 thing. Don't know that I've ever heard of any pre-war. Fan-1967 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; obvious hoax with anachronisms all over the place. Easy example: North Korea (mentioned at the bottom of "Enemies") didn't exist until after WW2. Nuclear bombs weren't a common idea before 1945, either, and lasers weren't invented until 1960. Need I continue? Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. Dekimasu 09:03, 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 speedy delete (corollary of G4). theProject 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe dsane[edit]

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

Roscoe Dsane passed through AfD recently and was deleted. This is just basically the same article with a different capitalisation, created by the same user at the same time - fchd 19:38, 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 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irene bernik[edit]

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

Article was speedied once as nn-bio but recreated a short time after the deletion. I'm bringing it here to settle this through AfD rather than a consistant delete and recreate cycle. Artist appears to be non-notable. No outside sources given. While she has been dead for 6 years now and Google might not be the greatest judge for this, her name only gets 11 hits, 10 of which are a really odd mirror of the Wikipedia deletion log for this article. Metros232 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not assert notability beyond a generic "she is notable" without any specifics. Demiurge 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is a subjective term. The precepts of wikipedia do not denote it a a requirement though it the most often used reason by the administrators as a reason for content deletion. I thus posse that wikipedia is subject to the whims of its editors thus presents a narrow view of humanity. Societies derive notability not individuals especially not those individuals who would be influenced or work in unison to ensure a centric or singular perspective. History has notable figures who cannot be found in the records of Google, but are none the less relevant. If wikipedia is simply a reflection of Google or any other such tool, is it trully notable? If not then please proceed deleting this article.

Birktek 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Birktek, Google is simply a tool used to locate sources to verify the assertions made within the article. WP:V is an official policy, and there is nothing in the article that can be referenced (online or offline) to confirm that the subject is encyclopedic. The reason that notability (specifically the WP:NN and WP:BIO guidelines) is used, is that an encyclopedia without notability requirements quickly becomes a phone book. Caknuck 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V Understood, my apologies I agree that it should be removed Birktek 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, arguably a speedy but I agree with nom's rationale. NawlinWiki 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:V. This may be, however, a bad faith nom, considering that the nominator and author have been involved in a revert war over University of Mary Washington. On the other hand, Birktek's edits center around people with the last name "Bernik" (somewhat similar to their username), so WP:COI may be an issue as well. Caknuck 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wasn't in bad faith. I just went through the user's other contributions to make sure there wasn't any other issues of possible vanity going on such as adding what is presumed to be someone close to the user to the UMW article. So when I saw this then saw it had previously been deleted, that's when I decided to nominate it. Metros232 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what I figured, especially after reviewing your edit history. I wanted to put everything regarding you and Birktek out there in the interest of fair debate. Caknuck 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:V and nom. - Walkiped 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe the name is spelled wrong, but I'm just not finding anything on her. As she lived recently, one would think that a notable artist would have net verification of notability. --Oakshade 00:24, 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 Redirect to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, where it's already mentioned. Btw, this is verifiable alright. ~ trialsanderrors 04:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four f's[edit]

Four f's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is not notable enough to satisfy inclusion criteria. At best, possibly a merge into Jawbreaker (band), but I don't even think that it meets WP:V -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If merged, would not Friedrich Ludwig Jahn be a more appropriate merge target, being the person who created the symbol? Just because somebody pirates a symbol doesn't make them the only user of the symbol, and histoy has priority. Merge if sourced to Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, with a wikilink from Jawbreaker (band). -- saberwyn 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that if it is merged it should go to Jahn and not some recent band. Jahn and the four f's influenced the Nazis; no 21st century band is that notable. --Charlene 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of those F's has to be Fail. Article lacks even a talk page. Anomo 03:23, 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 as unsourced and Redirect ~ trialsanderrors 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebounding[edit]

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

Unsourced article with very little content about this activity; tagged since July 2006. NawlinWiki 20:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF deleted, recreate as redirect to Rebound, which is a disambig page, as the verb form of the word. No stance on the deletion itself, but the lack of sources does not bode well. -- saberwyn 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rebound per nom and above. Zarbat 05:25, 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.
~~Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Food insecurity~~

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 major violation of WP:BLP policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennell Astercott[edit]

There is nothing in this article to indicate that this individual meets WP:BIO, and no sources have been cited for anything in the article. It looks like this may be a possible hoax, as there are no ghits on this individual, and there don't seem to be any reliable sources cited. SunStar Net 21:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pan Dan 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:V. Last name gets one ghit, same author created Naomi Kent, also up for AfD as probable hoax. BTW, Des Moines is in Iowa, not Illinois (Maybe he was thinking of Des Plaines?) Tubezone 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Seems generally implausible: Hollywood stars and CNN anchors don't spend much time in the Midlands. Fan-1967 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, Charlotte Church and Simon Cowell might have reason to pass through the Black Country on their travels.... but I think if either were slagged off by a D-list TV personality while they were visiting, someone might have reported that ;-) Tubezone 23:04, 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) 20:54, 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 Delete all - Yomangani ^talk 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoops In The Sun VII (2006)[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced that Hoops In The Sun is itself notable, but there's certainly no need for separate entries on each individual season's tournament, or on the MVP award of the tournament. NawlinWiki 21:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:

Hoops In The Sun VIII (2007)

Hoops In The Sun Most Valuable Player Award

Pops 5 (a team that competes in the tournament)

Joe "Pops" Cruz

Delete all as obvious advertising/promotion. A reasonable argument could be made that they all meet wp:csd G11. User:Hoops In The Sun VIII (2007) probably deserves a indefinite block as an inappropriate user name too. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Same goes for User:Hoops In The Sun -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've gone ahead and speedy deleted Hoops In The Sun under wp:csd G-12 (blatent copyvio). I'll let this AfD run its course because I don't see any copyvio in this particular article -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Spam promiting a non-notable amateur tournament. Dipics 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as advertising. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 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 - the single source does not (as has been mentioned repeatedly in the course of the AFD) support the mass of original research that comprises the article. Yomangani ^talk 23:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qpawn[edit]

Very non-notable website, its Alexa ranking is incredibly low and it seems more like vanity than anything else. Veesicle 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an important part of nationsim history, reason enough for its page to exist. Itake 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is part of nationsim history, you should easily be able to cite multiple history books and history articles where its part in nationsim history has been recorded in detail, thereby showing that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources to demonstrate that what you claim is true. Uncle G 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, must be in the same books I find sources for internet stuff like leekspin or utterly retarded stuff like List of films by gory death scene? Nice try. Itake 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice the existence of Loituma Girl#References and List of films by gory death scene#References. The latter does, indeed, cite a book. It seems that you are stating that there are no sources at all to cite. As such, you yourself have just made a convincing argument that this article should be deleted. You've also belied your earlier claim that this is a part of nationsim history. Once again: Please cite sources if you wish to demonstrate otherwise. Uncle G 10:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the sources are other website. Which rely on other website, and so on. No books. You wanted books, no? Itake 12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for sources. Uncle G 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read here,It is hard finding information on nationsims, not much is documented.angel6dk
That's a mirror of Geo-Political web-based simulator, which itself cites no sources at all. Wikipedia is not a source. Please cite sources. Uncle G 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the sites themselves are sources filled with information about the games themselves and the history of the games. Those have been added as sources, happy happy happy. Itake 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An original history and analysis of a web site that is generated from direct observation of the web site is original research. Interpretations and analyses require sources, which "the sites themselves" are not. Even then, if the only history or analysis of a web site is not independent from the web site itself, the web site does not satisfy our WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 12:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepQpawn is one of the largest nationsims on the net and is currently a large game. It has a large fan basis. Most of the traffic goes direct through the forum, while the Angelfire siteis used for players joining the game. The article contains Qpawns history (is still being worked on) and how Qpawn is extremely important in the world of nationsims . angel6dk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information in the article about Qpawn's 'importance' in nationsim history. As someone else said below, there are also no sources available to back up that claim. --Veesicle 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
look at This, Qpawn was used in a course run by Massachussets Institute opf technology. This must be reference enough in my oppinion. angel6dk
No, it isn't. That source is a presentation whose sole discussion of this web site comprises a single slide that contains three bullet points telling us that QPawn is "Web-based", has "Real countries", is "Run by moderators", and is "forum-based". That's 1 sentence of information. There's nothing in that source that supports the content of this article. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the web or bookshop. You will find nothing written on Nationsims game. The best reference and history is written in Wikedpia. If you look at Nationsims games based on a forum, you will also notice that Qpawn is one of the most successfull and largest. The fact is that there is a lack of information on nationsims, and searching it, the only information leads to a Eikedpia article on nationsims. Qpawns importrance is mentioned here. It was not written by a Qpawn member. The fact is when you search the web that nothing is written on nationsims shows that the area is still in development. Or there is simply bot enough to write a book on the subject. Lets face it, a book on nationsims will be boring. Because the games are forum based, little evidence is there to create a history of nationsims. Qpawn startet in 1998,ask anyone in the nationsim world, most consider it the first. As there is no information or articles on nationsims,This must count, --angeldk6 19:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia mirrors are not sources. The utter lack of any discussion of these subjects elsewhere outside of Wikipedia does not change that. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
"You will find nothing written on Nationsims game. The best reference and history is written in Wikedpia." — In other words, this article violates both our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. You have just made a solid case for its deletion, one that can only be contradicted by citing the sources that you have said do not exist. Uncle G 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability per WP:WEB. Nothing shown that third-party reliable sources have written anything non-trivial about this. --Charlene 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB Computerjoe 's talk 22:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qpawn is listed as the 13th most visited browser game on alexa rating Considering most visiters log on directly on our forum and not tjrough the main page, this seems to show the game is important angel6dk 23:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it has been said before, I'll repeat it: It has important historical value in nationsim history. Dealing with entirely web-based phenomenon like this makes citing sources more difficult, particularly when Qpawn was one of the founding forces in making nationsims what they are today. Simple Wordsmith 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources to cite, there can be no encyclopaedia article. It's that simple. If your argument is that there are no sources to cite, then you've made a strong argument to delete this article, even though you've prefixed that argument with the word "keep". Your argument that there are no sources cannot be out-voted. Your only arguments for keeping are sources, sources, sources. There has yet to be even one single source cited, either in this discussion or in the article. Uncle G 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep QPawn is a nationsim that is not only fun, but also educational. It teaches the player about history, geography, politics, economics and quite possibly, teaches the player a few things about themselves! It's page MUST be kept. Tarkus3 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 'fun' of the game have to do with it's notability? --Veesicle 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep QPawn is certainly significant enough, as it is a nation sim which has continued to exist for quite some time. A lot of nation sims have died, including some mentioned on the page about nation sims, but Qpawn has managed to continue its existence in some form or another. Rabble Rouser 15:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Qpawn is a large game, made by the original creator of the Qpawn dynasty. There are now more nationsims on the net than many other types of games. These add variety and this page should be kept because this genre of game is one in its own and deserves its own page. If this page is deleted, Wikipedia has squashed the game as not notworthy enough (being the first and official QPawn) to be noted. All of you who do not feel that this page is notworthy should try it sometime. --Euphoria X 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Qpawn in by far the best nationsim on the web. The majority of other nationsims have either been inspired from Qpawn or have borrowed many of its fundamental gameplay attributes. It is also worth noting that Qpawn has an unbelievably high activity rating which is not common among nationsims. The reason for this is largely because people find out about Qpawn through wikipedia, which keeps new players coming. Deleting this article would adversely affect the game and unless that is the goal of deleting it there seems to be no reason for doing so.
"people find out about Qpawn through wikipedia, which keeps new players coming" — Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Uncle G 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Source can be found here This, Qpawn was used in a course run by Massachussets Institute opf technology. This must be reference enough in my oppinion, considering there is not much information on nationsims besides what there is in Wikepedia angel6dk
It's not. It's 1 sentence's worth of information. See above. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the MIT source cited by angel6dk. Perhaps also the article could be expanded to explain its significance without turning it POV. Basically, I think it has more potential as an article than a lot of the other things we've been deleting recently, and in this case I don't think the lack of easy citations is necessarily its fault, since that genre really is niche to start with. --Jemiller226 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MIT source contains 1 sentence's worth of information about this web site. (See above.) Where are the sources that support the rest of this article? Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want other sources, fine, but I feel fairly strongly that you need to make a distinction between notability in a community and notability worldwide. I edited a page last night on some cooking website I'd never heard of and didn't see any multitudes of sources for, but the site's been around a long time and it wasn't a vanity article, so I saw no reason to send it to the deletion crew (whether it be speedy, ProD, or AfD), and I've been pretty quick on that particular trigger lately. This is all to say that notability must be relative in the cases of certain genres of websites, music, and so on, or there won't be any mention of any of them on Wikipedia whatsoever. I realize this isn't the place for that discussion, but is that really what you want? At the very least, it should be a Redirect to an article about nation sims, as per WP:WEB, the policy you yourself keep citing as a reason to delete. --Jemiller226 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. There is no reason to make any such distinction between community fame and wordwide fame, because notability is not fame nor importance, as you erroneously think it to be. The PNC in WP:WEB does not make any such distinction, and rightly so because it is addressing notability, not fame. The PNC requires multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the web site (and its creators/publishers). I've asked for such sources five times, now. If the web site whose article you edited is not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources, then it too does not warrant an article on Wikipedia.
For this web site, a redirect is only appropriate if, per Wikipedia:Redirect, the subject would warrant discussion as a sub-topic within an article with broader scope. But since the only source that has been cited contains 1 sentence's worth of information, if that, there's not even enough source material for a sub-topic. As stated right at the start, for this subject to warrant mention even in an article on nationsims, it has to be shown that it has actually been recorded as a "part of nationsim history" (as claimed). Despite repeated encouragement, neither you nor anyone else has cited a single source to demonstrate that it is, in fact, a part of nationsim history, and that it warrants any mention anywhere in Wikipedia.
Sources, sources, sources! Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start off by saying that you have a very interesting definition of the word notable. Notability is neither fame nor importance? Then what, precisely, is it? Princeton University seems to disagree with you, by the way. If this is deleted because fame is not notability, maybe I should go AfD Paris Hilton or something. After all, what's she done to achieve notability aside from being famous for fame's sake? You basically say on your user page that notability has nothing to do with anything aside from having sources to cite, but then you go on, on that same user page, to list all sorts of things that notability is not, including verifiability, which at first glance seems to fly in the face of notability being nothing more than multitudinous sources.
At the end of the day, Uncle G, three-quarters of the articles on Wikipedia would be gone by a strict reading of your "rules" for notability. While I understand what you have goals and you are trying to make a point, that doesn't necessarily make you right for it.
Lastly, you are flat-out incorrect about what WP:WEB states. "Websites or content which fail these guidelines but are linked to a topic or subject which does merit inclusion may be redirected to that topic or subject rather than be listed for deletion." Wikipedia:Redirect has nothing to say on the matter; it's just a list of reasons to redirect and a how-to for doing so. It's not a list of reasons to delete instead of redirect. --Jemiller226 20:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try Uncle G. We're discussing the deletion of the entire article, nothing else. The MIT article is a source, don't change the subject. Itake 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the subject. WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial published works. The MIT source contains 1 sentence's worth of information about this web site, and doesn't qualify as non-trivial. For the fifth time: Please cite sources. Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ah, ah. Now we're getting somewhere Uncle G. Its no longer about violating wikipedia policies, its about the fact that YOU don't belive the sources. Which is, entirely, your problem. Itake 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QPawn is one of the largest Nation Sim on the net. If you are going to take this off the site than you might as well take off anything to do with nation sims, pbp rpgs or rpgs in general. DON'T TAKE IT OFF THE NET! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCromwell (talk • contribs) 2006-11-22 23:09:11
We are discussing the deletion of a Wikipedia article. It has nothing to do with whether the web site itself remains operational. Uncle G 12:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable game with enthusiastic sockpuppet following. No independent hits on google. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sockpuppet. Look at my edit history. It's mostly stub sorting, but I've been here for a long time. --Jemiller226 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And look who's talking, a member of something as retarded as the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians". Atleast we know you're not biased (insertdisbeliefsmileyhere). Itake 23:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Address the argument, not the person. Uncle G 13:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit being so ridiculously agressive, this is a debate, not an argument. --Veesicle 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No its an attack on perfectly good articles on wiki. Itake 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is Getting hit over the head lessons -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:WEB and thus ultimately fails WP:V. Whisp e ring 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.' To the extent any nation or political simulator article is "notable", this one most certainly is. It is an important and well known example of the genre, and as is noted above, it has been recognized at least once by a very reputable, independent source. I don't see how this doesn't conform to WP:WEB (Which states that content is notable if it is "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators.") and commonsense guidelines for notability. Structural problems and problems with sourcing can be dealt with and are no grounds for having the article deleted for all time. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:35, 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 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kincoppal-Rose Bay, School of the Sacred Heart, Sydney[edit]

Kincoppal-Rose Bay, School of the Sacred Heart, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completing AfD attempt by User:KRBadmin. Nominator's reason given in the edit summary was: "Request for deletion of page as page duplicates content from www.krb.nsw.edu.au" This page has been a bit of a battleground recently, with repeated attempts to insert negative comments on school leadership. A mediation cabal case was started, but doesn't appear to have gone anywhere as yet. Whether or not it's a copyvio (which seems odd, as in previous edits it's been commented in edit summary that students are working on the page), it's definitely unsourced and reads like advertising. Abstain, procedural nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite if necessary I can't see which specific page its a copvio of and it seems like a fairly notable school (nearly 1k pupils). Computerjoe 's talk 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly seems to have notable alumni. While Gai Waterhouse perhaps needs to be confirmed, the wife of a member of the British Royal family seems to have education at this school mentioned on her WP article. --Bduke 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never really understood the logic of the alum argument. Either schools are notable, sui generis, or they are not, in which case the accidental production of a few notable folks is not germane. Personally, I think schools are not notable, (hence Delete) but we've had these arguments before ad inf. and in the end everyone has agreed to disagree. But the question surely should redound to whether schools, in and of themselves, merit encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Seems notable and verifiable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - notable alumni is not enough for notability on its own merits, but it should add to it. Even without it, though, the school is very well known in Sydney and the buildings (a former convent) are very historic too. JROBBO 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another nn private school, as far as I see. If we do keep, then extensively rewrite. Lankiveil 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

keep DXRAW 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep. The fact that this school began in 1882 is enough right there to make it historically notable. The fact that it was established by a Catholic Saint - helloooo, yes, a Saint - makes it instantly notable for Catholic history purposes. The fact that the building is architecturally significant (it was created by the famous radical architect John Horbury Hunt) also makes it notable. Claims about the text being copied from elsewhere have yet to be proven, and mere content disputes aren't supposed to be in AfDs anyway, right? Let's speedy-close this ASAP. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the schools debate is long over. This school is as notable as any of the Association of Heads of Independent Girls' Schools - many of which have articles.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this is a historical school with many notable graduates Yuckfoo 21:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waqqas awan[edit]

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

Contest prod regarding an article about a footballer who is claimed to have turned pro at 13. Only listed source is an apparent fan site that in not found during a DNS query. Possible autobiography or vanity article as the article subject shares a common name with the article creator. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to back up he article's claims. --Allen3 ^talk 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I marked an earlier incarnation as a speedy for roughly the same reason (he might play well, but there's no proof that he does), and have just repeated my attempts to find any evidence that he exists with the same lack of success. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Eusebeus 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - You have got to be kidding me. A personal life (4 letters: NPOV), general info, and hope section? This utterly fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT, and is obviously WP:AUTO. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 01:16, 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 Redirect to Julian day. It's an unlikely search term as far as I can see, but redirects are cheap (especially if nobody uses them). Yomangani ^talk 22:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11/17/1858[edit]

Unsourced orphan, seems like it would be something which could be in another article (somewhere). A very quick google reveals few sources, and I would even venture to say that the article is a dicdef (and WP:NOT a dictionary) M a rtinp23 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in Julian day, the obvious place for what are simply 2 sentences of information about a particular JD variant that in no way warrant an article all to themselves. Although the former doesn't seem all that useful, either redirect or delete according to taste. Uncle G 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Julian Day in case someone just types it in. Dall ben 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. --- RockMFR 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are barely any articles linked to it and the article is small as it is. This does seem like something that could be linked to another article. Matthewbarnard 15:13, 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 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and Evolution of Chinese Social Stratification[edit]

Structure and Evolution of Chinese Social Stratification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced article about a non-notable book that does not meet any of the criteria in the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books). A Google search turns up WP and clone hits, book sellers, mention of the book in blurbs about the author and one review that requires a paid subscription to access. Donald Albury 22:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person who wrote this has also listed the book as a reference in a large number of articles (mostly now reverted by other people). It's just spam. --Zundark 14:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM and not notable. Signature ^brendelNow under review! 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per vanity and notability issues. Content is probably an exact copy of the marketing fluff off the back of the book. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 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. AfD is the place where notability needs to be established, not assumed. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Energy Network Institute[edit]

Global Energy Network Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

spam for worthy-sounding but non-notable organisation Sam Clark 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As nom: Delete or, if notability can be demonstrated, rewrite in encyclopedic style. Cheers, Sam Clark 22:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is asserted. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the article, notability can be assumed. The remedy is to have it wikified. DGG 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but I don't see why 'notability can be assumed'. A google search comes up with plenty of trivial mentions of the organisation (in lists of attendees at conferences, directories of charitable organisations, etc.), but no non-trivial, independent sources about it that I can find. The article is pretty clearly an incompletely-wikied dump of some promotional material produced by the organisation itself. What independent, reliable sources are there for wikifying this article? Sam Clark 22:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.W. Willis: A Preacher's Preacher[edit]

O.W. Willis: A Preacher's Preacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to be promotional copy for a self-published book; I could not locate any additional information about Willis online—the subject may be distinguished, but is not WP Notable. choster 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate notability. Article looks oddly as if copied from somewhere, with what look like citations to nonexistent footnotes. Fan-1967 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention of notability. A self-published book is hardly a reliable resource. Salad Days 20:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Notation Method[edit]

Progressive Notation Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is Wikipedia:Original research, as admitted by the author on my talk page: "The reason I can't cite sources is because this has never been documented before", which is the very definition of original research. It is also a non-notable neologism, as demonstrated by a Google search which returns only this article. There are other problems with this article, but I'll leave them for now, for fear of being uncivil. Mak (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly Original Research and this is not a place for stuff dreamt up in music school. Eusebeus 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A whopping two ghits, being the article itself. Agent 86 00:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article creator admits that it's OR. --Charlene 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I originally {{prod}}ded the article. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not Original research in any way. Maybe Original documentation, but that doesn't violate any policy! Fine! Do you you want! It's obvious that all of you are stuffy headed, puffed up and arogant. You must have nothing better to do than try and run people off! So here, have your brain stimulating web pages of unimportant babel. You can be sure that before I come back to Wikipedia again I'll make sure I'm a genius like all of you so I can fit in. Because you obviously think that you are SO much smarter than everyone. By all means be as "uncivil" as you like you wont hurt my feelings any! It's not like I put any stock in anything you say, you two faced òinseach! (look it up) As for Wikipedia, not only will I refrain from using it, but will also reccomend that no one else does either. Maybe going as far as to create a web page(citing appropriate sources and mentioning all of your accounts of course). So delete my article and have fun with playing your little game, "hey look at me I am an intellect,......Delete!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.10.254.61 (talk • contribs)

Delete - if the creator of the article is a vicious, nasty troll, you can be fairly sure he has written complete crap. Which he has. Moreschi 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, and bollocks, too Lurker ^oi! 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR plus hissy fit. --Folantin 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that the Progressive Notation Method was organized by Nik Spikes, yet Google has no mention of Nik Spikes associated with any musical topic other than this article. John Link 08:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchison_Park[edit]

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

Not notable. Jemiller226 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Hung Hom, WP:LOCAL. Demiurge 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's probably a better solution. I've been out of Wikipedia for quite a while and I guess some things have changed. --Jemiller226 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect, as supported by nom. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:09, 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 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say marvin[edit]

I say marvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable; apparently a band local to Brighton in the UK. Jemiller226 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and thus proddable, which I've already done! No wonder I was getting edit conflicts... Grutness...wha? 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been a long time and clearly things have passed me by a bit. If I had gotten a conflict I would have stopped what I was doing immediately. --Jemiller226 00:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S'alright. My fault. I spotted the afd notice on the page, but there wasn't a subpage created then so I prodded it thinking someone had forgotten it. By the time I managed to save my edit you'd made the afd subpage :) Grutness...wha? 06:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7, there's nothing indicating notability in there. Tagged as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 no assertion of anything close to satisfying WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 04:11, 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 - crz crztalk 04:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frumhere[edit]

Ad for non-notable social networking site. Fails WP:WEB. Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --DLand ^TALK 00:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is an entry for Arab social networking [58] why shouldn't there be an entry for Frum Jewish social networking This site is also on an accepted list of social networking sites at [59]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjoe613 (talk • contribs)

comment There is no rule demanding fair and equal time, an article should be decided on it's own merits. Just because there is an Arab networking site already featured that does not give a free pass to a Jewish one.wtfunkymonkey 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, Bigjoe was the article's creator, and also added it to the List of social networking websites. --Czj 04:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non notable, no sources cited, fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give a s*** - I edited the article a bit for cleanup, but if the original creator can't produce information to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, delete away. I should probably unwatch List of social networking websites so I don't get sucked into these things. Argyriou (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I've never heard of the site, but I would give it a little time to establish evidence of notability if it can. I would imagine standards for notability among members of a relatively small (but itself notable) community would be somewhat lesser than standards for the general public, but there is a floor. If there's no evidence of notability at all, by all means delete. --Shirahadasha 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the big dating services are frumster and Jdate. This is a small start up.

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 22:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:07, 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 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purity Baking Company[edit]

Purity Baking Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Of questionable notability. Only 70 Google hits, but I realize Google isn't everything -- especially with a baking company, which would generally maintain a low profile even if it was notable. So, I'm throwing it to the community. --Czj 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article creator appears to be a single purpose account. No evidence in the article that this company passes WP:CORP. Google searches find at least four companies in the US alone called Purity Baking, and this is the newest. I can't find any news articles online *at all* about this Purity Baking. Most historical news articles I've found on food companies called Purity are about Purity Mills, a predecessor company of Maple Leaf Foods. --Charlene 00:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP - crz crztalk 21:02, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Brockie[edit]

Not notable. Editor of a minor fashion magazine in New Zealand. Looks like self-promotion. No references. Randomkiwi 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 33 Google News Archive references so seems notable enough for mine. [60]. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lessee WP:VAIN? check. WP:BIO? nope. Delete Eusebeus 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the Google New Archive references found by CR, several are stories from the magazine Brockie edits, so they are not independent for purposes of WP:BIO. The remainder are her mentioned in passing in relation to the magazine's plans or are for quotations attributed to her discussing another topic. JChap2007 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom and JChap - crz crztalk 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JChap2007. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 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 Speedy Delete. The article would have applied to any forum. If anyone wants to merge something, let me know and I'll put a copy somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Gamer Forum[edit]

PC Gamer Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article covering the forums on PC Gamer Magazine's website. Forum on its own is not signifcant enough to warrant a separate article. SubSeven 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. I tagged it. —EdGl 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. No notability claimed. Eusebeus 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to PC Gamer. Someone might conceivably look for an article by this name and should wind up somewhere. Newyorkbrad 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? There's no content to merge! :] A redirect, maybe... —EdGl 01:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, fair enough, but there's something written there; and while on first reading I agree with you there's not a great deal of article content, I'd rather have someone who knows a little more than I do about the subject-matter make the call on whether there's anything at all worth integrating before any redirect is implemented and the content is gone. It looks to me like the worthwhile content could be summarized in a sentence or two at most; but a sentence or two isn't quite nothing.... Not a big deal either way. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that this article reeks of vanity. And wouldn't one type in "PC Gamer" before typing "PC Gamer Forum" in the search box? One can't just assume there's an article written on the forum, can they? Anything's possible, but I feel it's unlikely, so a redirect may not be appropriate (it might not hurt, either). —EdGl 02:04, 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.