Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 22

< November 21	November 23 >

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law 2.0[edit]

per WP:NOR Fiblick 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell what this is just by reading the article, but it does have about 24k elgooG hits... —EdGl 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty sure most of those google hits aren't relevant to the article - whatever it is - at hand. Eusebeus 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems like a load of baloney at best and a hoax at worst, and yet we also have a Category for "Law 2.0", which includes many other articles, such as Identity 2.0, City 2.0, Library 2.0, and, uh.... Wet floor effect. WTF? As far as I can tell, some enterprising upstarts are trying to expand the Web 2.0 concept to everything else on Earth, with mixed results. wikipediatrix 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too fluffy to even make sense of, my head is reeling. RichMac 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and maybe even salt, per WP:V, WP:NOR, and probably numerous other policies and guidelines. Borderline case for WP:BOLLOCKS. Suggest some nuking of the cats and other articles mentioned by Wikipediatrix as well. Xtifr _tälk 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I've studied on it and I still don't get it. Scientology makes perfect sense compared to this. wikipediatrix 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. This looks like a buzzword within a buzzword rather than a substantive topic. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 per above. MER-C 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above reasons--SUIT 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fairly pontless article. Atlantis Hawk 07:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^BETA - per nom. wtfunkymonkey 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not NPOV either. SupaStarGirl 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an advert, and per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft 2.0 Anyone can make up a term by applying 2.0 to an English word Lurker ^oi! 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0, violates WP:OR. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though I fixed the HTML, it still is lacking. --SonicChao ^talk 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first off it's written like an ad with "features" listed but about what? Original research.--Shella * 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, ad, etc.-- danntm ^T _C 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is rather original research and does not sound very much encyclopedic.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire 2.0 fad as non-notable neologism riding on the coattails of Web 2.0. adding ~ism on the end of each noun or person's name is bad enough. Nuke the lot. Ohconfucius 07:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deji Falope (Television Host)[edit]

I don't see any real notability here. —EdGl 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup. Fails WP:BIO by a landslide. --K yo cat^meow! 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google yields nothing relevant. Darkspots 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, absolutely nothing outside of WP and answers.com. Fails notability by a mile. JChap2007 02:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know he's unheard of in the U.S., and there's definitely no Web presence (but that may just be most of Africa in general). If there were even a hint of him (African newspaper, book, etc.), I might change my mind. Dall ben 06:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whoa hang on, just because he's a television host in a developing county dosen't mean he's not notable. Atlantis Hawk 07:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is suggesting that he be deleted because he's from a developing country? In this case, the article reads like an ad, it was created by a user DIGIDIP (talk · contribs) and neither of the external links mention his name at all. However, I found a short biography by his nickname "Digidip" in this flash animation from a Nigerian music TV channel, so apparently he does exist. Delete because I don't see a realistic chance that this will ever be anything other than an advertisement, given the sources available. Demiurge 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, and it fails WP:BIO. --SonicChao ^talk 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete massive failure of WP:BIO. Fails google + the links got no mention of him. --Shella * 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promo article that lacks the WP:BIO requirements.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:51, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosan Gamgol Food[edit]

non notable company. Linux Long 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, so tagged. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Sr13 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, much as I love that good ol' Powder Pyogo Mush. wikipediatrix 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia's Own A7 News. Speedy deleting since 2001. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 03:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacked Records[edit]

non notable records. Linux Long 01:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability. Founded in 2006 and article states sole purpose is to release records of founders. RichMac 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non notable. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 06:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN, unverifiable. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --SonicChao ^talk 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable 68.173.32.171 16:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if even discogs.com cant find info on the label... there is no way its large enough to be notable. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 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 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Hollywood) Power Metal[edit]

Non-notable music genre, linked by one article. Was prodded, but tag was removed with no comment why this should be kept. Derlay 01:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nearly context-free material lifted from an existing WP article, Rhapsody of Fire. No matter what Rhapsody of Fire calls their music, categorizing the album that links to this article as Symphonic power metal rather than Hollywood Power Metal would probably be more useful to the majority of users. Delete. Darkspots 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.-_Seadog ^♪ 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Music Genre. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Shella * 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rhapsody of Fire, the one band that identifies as this genre Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:57, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Valley Bible Methodist Church[edit]

Notability not asserted for this small and obscure church that gets only 35 G-hits (and of those, only 12 are unique G-hits). wikipediatrix 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom from w'trix, who may be putting her soul in peril by Afding all these churches. ;) JChap2007 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not even worrying about her soul, and I'm Christian. :) bibliomaniac 1 5 03:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No assertion of notability. MER-C 04:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another non-notable church. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prayer service for wikipediatrix's soul (or for God to smite her) is no doubt going on somewhere right now Lurker ^oi! 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't begin to establish notability. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Just curious, is there a reason why something like this doesn't qualify for CSD A7? Green451 01:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Seems like a CSD A7 candidate to me as there is no assertion of notability. Movementarian (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-as per all. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argao Central Elementary School[edit]

Notability not asserted for this obscure schoolhouse in the Philippines. Only 13 unique G-hits, most of which are blogs, Friendster profiles and wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unverifiable. MER-C 04:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there's a variety of schools that lack web presence. When it's in the Philippines it's probably not uncommon for that to happen. Has anyone tried applying notability rules from WP:SCHOOLS instead of going by Google presence alone? There's bound to be paper references. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That seems as a basic idea to be reasonable to look for such sources, however WP:SCHOOLS does not have a consensus and seems unlikely to develop a consensus as a guideline in the forseeable future. JoshuaZ 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem notable. If sources are cited, then it shall be a keep. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In it's current form. If it can be expanded, keep it. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am allowing myself to be influenced by a personal bias here. School articles always attract a lot of vandalism. In my opinion, the less we have the better. LittleOldMe 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The school has been or was in existence for over 50 years, due to the great likelihood of—but greater difficulty of uncovering—non-trivial historical coverage of that school" from WP:SCHOOLS. I think this is notable. --SonicChao ^talk 22:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and material have been added to article about school, its programs and alumni. Based on the unique program the school is undertaking, the fact that it's over 75 years old and that a recent former Chief Justice of the Philippines is a rather distinguished alumnus, I think the article satisfies WP:SCHOOL. As the article has been expanded, sources have been added and there is no reason to suspect that this article will be a target for vandalism, I hope that others will reconsider their vote. Alansohn 23:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:SCHOOLS and the fact that a former member of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was educated there, which makes it notable. Movementarian (Talk) 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 50 years is an arbitrary cutoff point and isn't really considered very old in most parts of the world outside the United States. (Radiant) 15:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, practically all schools are notable because by their very nature, they have a reason for existing that differentiates them from other schools, hence they have notability for filling that niche. This is clearly notable for being the primary (only?) elementary school of Argao, for being a historic school started in 1928, for being one of only seven schools chosen to represent the region for the UNESCO pilot project, etc., etc. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To your first sentence- absolutely not. The claim that "practically all schools are notable because by their very nature, they have a reason for existing that differentiates them from other schools, hence they have notability for filling that niche" is simply a long drawn out way of asserting that all schools are notable. The "niche" that these schools fill is no different than the different niches that corner stores and individual firehouses fulfill. JoshuaZ 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think individual firehouses should be automatically notable, actually. All towns are notable, and firehouses and schools are integrally connected to their town's governments in a way that banks and stores obviously aren't. But even without petitioning for a blanket notability for schools, it's still true that most schools can make a claim of notability, except maybe brand new schools that haven't existed long enough yet to generate verifiable sources for itself. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we all agree that all schools, firehouses and corner stores are "notable", but this particular school is apparently one of just seven schools participating in a Unesco pilot program on health issues in a third world nation - what could be more significant than that? The fact that a supreme court chief justice started his journey here is just icing on the cake. In short, qualifies for inclusion (and we do not decide on the basis of google hits). --JJay 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No we do not all agree. Schools are NOT notable by default, and notable alumni does not make a school inherently notable either. Edgecution 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remain on point by formulating an opinion that directly addresses Argao Central Elementary School. --JJay 22:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what Edgecution means is that this school is not notable since schools are not inherently notable and he finds the only notability claim in this case, the presence of a single notable alumnus, does not persuade him to consider the school to be notable. JoshuaZ 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's NOT the only notability claim. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue what you mean by the "only notability claim" nor could I define "notability claim". However, to set the record straight, this 80-year old school is part of a pilot Unesco program and has educated, among others, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That is what we are here to discuss, not philosophical blah blah about firehouses, corner stores or other inherently unrelated issues such as opinions on the inherent worth of this or that. Apparently the inherent sarcasm in the first part of my initial comment was not evident; I hope it is now. --JJay 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sugar guy - I am getting sick of these "fundies" who believe that their view of notability etc is the be all and end all of Wp. Let them go and start their own Nonpedia with just one article where they can endless fight their little wars in the Talk page. (IMHO) Albatross2147 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with his argument though is that he says all schools are notable. That is not true and has never been agreed here at WP. So schools have to show WHY they are notable. Edgecution 22:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have we not shown more than one reason why Argao Central Elementary School is notable? Highfructosecornsyrup 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Alan. The presence of a program only in a small number of schools together with a very notable alumn seems to push it arguably over the edge. JoshuaZ 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the argument (noted above by Edgecution) that schools are in and of themselves inherently unnotable and don't warrant encyclopedic treatment. Nothing about this mentioned above suggests one iota of notability. Eusebeus 11:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it IS Wikipedia policy that all towns are notable, even if they're the tiniest spot-in-the-road village. Therefore, it stands to reason that any given town's municipal functions are notable: public schools, courthouses, government buildings, firehouses, etc. This would not include banks, hospitals, stores, businesses, etc. which are not municipal functions. Highfructosecornsyrup 14:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable. The UNESCO program can be covered adequately in the UNESCO article. Fairsing 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really implying that all Unesco programs be covered in the Unesco article? If so, what is your suggestion for the many articles found in Category:UNESCO? --JJay 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either the FRESH program can be covered in the UNESCO article, or if it is sufficently notable itself, the FRESH program might justify its own article, in which case such an article would belong in Category:UNESCO or possibly also Category:World Health Organization. None of that really has anything to do with the question of whether this particular school is notable, which is the question at hand here in this AFD discussion. Fairsing 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is one way of looking at it. The other is that the school's participation in the program should be covered in an article on the school. As far as I'm concerned, that participation along with the other factors goes a long way to justifying this article's inclusion at wikipedia, which has everything to do with this AfD discussion. --JJay 01:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another non-notable school. DB (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The age of the school is irrelevent and cannot make it notable, but being one of seven schools to be involved with FRESH and the notable alumnus does. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia guideline or policy do you cite for your claim that "The age of the school is irrelevent and cannot make it notable"? Show me where it says that. Highfructosecornsyrup 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where there has ever been a clear consensus that because something is old, it is notable? Please show me where it says that. Nothing gets a free ride as far as notability goes, it is something that must be demonstrated, and as far as I am concerned, the age of a school does not have any say at all on how notable it is. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate my point more concisely, consider any university of considerable age such as the University of Oxford- it is one of the most notable schools still in existence, but the notability is a virtue imbued by the many great people that have done work there, and its many and broad contributions to culture, society, and academic life. That it is the oldest university still around is incidental to its notability; that is to say that it's a neat fact but it is only trappings and not to do with substance at all; that is how I justify saying that the age of a school can only ever be incidental to its notability. To stress, old schools very often are notable, but that is only by way of their achievements and staff's characteristics. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently has no set guideline or policy on this matter, so we're arguing in a vacuum anyway. At least we're both saying "Keep". Highfructosecornsyrup 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please school has historic notability with being almost 80 years old and notable alumni too Yuckfoo 00:26, 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.--Hús ö nd 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Morrissey[edit]

Subjective, contrived, non-existent "curse". Can never be anything but Original Research. Not even notable as a meme: gets only 9 unique G-hits. wikipediatrix 01:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Morrissey article doesn't even contain the word 'curse'. If this is mentioned at all, it should be there, and not without a citation. --Masamage 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't merge, until covered in reliable, mainstream sources. JChap2007 02:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Morissey, as per Masamage, if properly sourced. Stammer 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of verification by reliable sources.--Isotope23 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like original research to me. LittleOldMe 16:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR.--Shella * 17:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yep, pretty obvious OR.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much everything above! --11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G11. Kimchi.sg 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Baptist Church of Washington, PA[edit]

No notability asserted, no sources provided. Nondescript and obscure small church with 94 members. wikipediatrix 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not even a hint of notability, borderline spam. Xtifr _tälk 03:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - It looks like spam. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:01, 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 no consensus. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applewood Heights Secondary School[edit]

Notability neither asserted nor evident for this small secondary school in Mississauga. Only 148 unique G-hits. wikipediatrix 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I put in the stabbing article...so at least SOMETHING happened at the school User:BCF_J-Train 11:53, 23 November 2006
Keep A secondary school with 1300 students should have an article, if only to draw students to edit wikipedia... har har har RichMac 03:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to an appropriate article about the district or region. Yet more annoying schoolcruft from the school-stub-spammers. Keeping articles/stubs on non-notable subjects to encourage kids to edit WP will simply result in more articles on non-notable subjects and things made up in school one day. If we want to encourage people to edit Wikipedia, we should do so by providing good articles that people will want to emulate! Xtifr _tälk 04:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a variant of the mall virus. Stammer 07:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Xtifr makes an excellent point which I fully agree with. Otherwise, I say delete for the reasons I always use on schools like this; non-notable, typical secondary school. We don't have articles for every restaurant, hospital or library, we shouldn't have articles for every school. --The Way 07:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schoolcruft, just another school. Xtifr made a very good point. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it can be made notable. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another target for bored school kids! LittleOldMe 16:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LittleOldMe, I am a bored school kid, and you don't see me vandalising Wikipedia, do you? Also, keep this page as per RichMac. :D --SonicChao ^talk 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it can be made notable. (Thanks Kungfu Adam) Revisions containing phone numbers should be removed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information which can be put into the table on Peel District School Board and redirect there. The article is too thin to support a separate page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm against the concept of school articles, but there's about 1,000 precedents. Teke^(talk) 06:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above sentiment about precedent. Secondary schools are gennerally considered notable as I believe they are too. --Oakshade 01:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability, heavy on unsourced gossip. Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Merge of anything of value, not including the crime report. Do not keep. Vegaswikian 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Halloween documents. The subject of this article is already included in "Halloween documents", so nothing left to merge. Agent 86 19:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Valloppillil[edit]

Highly non notable. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of the two original versions of Halloween documents which (with annotations by Eric Raymond) is one of the most famous documents in Open source literature. Both the person and the document can be easily verified. Tintin (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both this article and Halloween documents need some cleanup, but are notable. wikipediatrix 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tintin and the number of google hits which associate him with the halloween documents [1]. Article just needs rewriting. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Is there any credible news paper report to convince his achievement.All the references are from personal blogs. How can we verify it...?Is there any credible news paper report....? The article is about a Keralite. I am also from Kerala. I hadn't heard his name eventhough I'm a journalist in Kerala. No keralite is aware about him.I hadn't seen a single line about him in any of the newspapers in Kerala(In Malayalam or in English). Can u show a press report in The Hinduor any other Newspaper from India to convince his notability. There are lakhs of computer experts in Kerala.Is it possible to include all the names in wikipedia...! Has he won some award......? I'm sure ...he has 0% notability in Kerala. If anyone is ready to show me even a single credible newspaper report about him either in English or in Malayalam I 'm ready to withdraw my nom forthwith. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are probably right. This person has 0% notability in Kerala. But that doesn't mean, he is not notable as a software proffessional. We have to look through his achievements as a software engineer, not as a Malayalee. Since, this incident happened 8-9 years back, there will be no newspaper coverage on him. The only link, I could find is this [2] --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. MER-C 04:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halloween documents. Don't think there's much that is notable in the article that isn't contained in Halloween documents. Correct me if I'm wrong, please -- Samir धर्म 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halloween documents as per Samir धर्म. Icemuon 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipediatrix. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject is notable but needs cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Samir. I don't see what else but these documents could make him notable, or what else about him would be notable. Sandstein 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Halloween documents --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kungfuadam.--Shella * 18:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halloween documents.--Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not much for a stand alone article but might as well redirect to Halloween Documents.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect. Gotta go with the later opinions here, unless there's something else interesting to say about him. Naming and defining him would take about a sentence and a half in the other article. --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per terence ong.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halloween documents per every one. There are thousands of such documents and software. The subject of the article does not seem to have any other contribution other than this document. Doctor Bruno 12:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per terence ong.--D-Boy 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:India is a land of thousands of software professionals. Is it possible to include all those names in wikipedia...?. If he is such a notable person Indian news papers will cover his name and surely write articles about him.But I dont find anything.I'm repeating.... If anyone is ready to show an Indian or Malayalam or International News report on him I'm ready to withdraw my AFD nomination.Indian newspapers never miss to cover a notable person. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - :-) This doesnt require an explanation. Please dont start writing about every other program manager. Simynazareth 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)simynazareth[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odyssey Charter[edit]

Notability not asserted for this small online-classes home-school program in Las Vegas. 257 unique G-hits, many of which are wikipedia mirrors, spam, blogs and nonsense. wikipediatrix 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Speedy Delete unless being a school counts as an assertion of notability (it's not in my book). —EdGl 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a parent of a student at Odyssey. Before deleting this, please correct something that was stated. This is not a home school. This is a distrance learning program, chartered by the Clark Co. School District. It is the ONLY K-12 public distance learning program in the country and should be given the opportunity to expand. If the arguement to delete is because there isn't enough information then we will remedy that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.168.75 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Blatant advertising as it currently stands. LittleOldMe 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per LittleOldMe. --SonicChao ^talk 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 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 Speedily deleted by Metros232. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Friction[edit]

This article about a musical project by Frank Klepacki does nothing but state that it exists. Therefore, there's nothing here even worth merging into Klepacki's own article. Recommend it be deleted and redirected to Frank Klepacki. wikipediatrix 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - the way I read it suggests it's about a group, not a project. CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 05:00, 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 Anglican Church of Canada. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ in Canada[edit]

A stub article about a proposed denomination that never happened. It was going to exist in 1974 .....but then it didn't. Notability, therefore, not asserted. wikipediatrix 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or, a significant moment in the history of Christianity in Canada, with more material to come. If the shoe fits... Carolynparrishfan 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. In the meantime, perhaps it could be merged into Religion in Canada and/or Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. wikipediatrix 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada have to do with anything? Carolynparrishfan 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the Anglican Church of Canada. wikipediatrix 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anglican Church of Canada as per wikipediatrix. Icemuon 11:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikipediatrix. Xtifr _tälk 11:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If it has more material to come than I'd like to see it first. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. At the moment it seems like a bit of trivia for the Anglican Church of Canada, but if enough information were added there it could be spun into it's own article. Movementarian (Talk) 03:49, 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. —freak(talk) 08:03, Nov. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Realize (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

Appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. I don't know Kelly Clarkson songs from Uriah Heep, but Google doesn't seem to come up with anything on this. Tubezone 02:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. Not familiar with her either but I could not find this song on Google or in her discography either.--Dakota 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I guess the title of the album says it all - "Possibly". MER-C 05:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Quimby & the Revolution in the Sky[edit]

Looks like a textdump of some college student's essay; not encyclopedic at all. Anything that's relevant should be merged to Harriet Quimby and the article should be deleted. Danny Lilithborne 02:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Point the creator to Harriet Quimby and let him work on THAT, which could use the help. --Calton | Talk 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio, no sign of permission. ~ trialsanderrors 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as textdump essay that should have anything usable merged to Harriet Quimby, as Danny noted above.--Isotope23 16:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is simply a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is on the part of a new editor. In the essay it states the author planned to post this on Wikipedia (making it likely not a copyvio as the poster can reasonably be assumed to be the author). I've tried to explain this on the author's talk page. Calton is right, Harriet Quimby could use some help and this editor might be the right person to do it once they understand the system here.--Isotope23 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a copyvio, but not off the net. If the copyvio is verified, it can be speedily deleted. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay, violates WP:OR - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harriet Quimby --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PIXNIT[edit]

Does not appear to be notable Alex Bakharev 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. RichMac 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 71 non-myspace ghits. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. MER-C 05:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom plus no claims made to notability in the article and a possible 'conflict of interest' article. I'm sure should the artist will eventually achieve notability she will have an article in Wikipedia. But at the moment, looks insufficiently notable. Marcus22 09:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Autobiographical. LittleOldMe 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 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. Mairi 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dekoy[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. —EdGl 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; Wikipedia isn't a compilation of every band with a Myspace. Crystallina 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...but they have 8,000 friends...that's notable...kidding. —EdGl 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band, fails WP:V. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND, those "full download" links don't quailfy for sources and should they even be there.--Shella * 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND, and MySpace bands, unless extremely notable, have no place on Wikipedia. --SonicChao ^talk 22:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was revert. MER-C 07:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slopes[edit]

No sources given (WP:RS, WP:V), no evidence of notability beyond a few people. Crystallina 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if possible, I would recommend a speedy revert to this version, as a redirect to Slope. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. If no one objects, we'll close this debate. MER-C 05:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete in the spirit of WP:NFT, even though it wasn't made up in school. MER-C 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. --- RockMFR 07:11, 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.--Hús ö nd 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northside Christian Church[edit]

No sources given for this article's grand claims, and it only gets 63 unique hits. The church is said to be "a work in progress". Fails all tests of notability. wikipediatrix 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article remains a stub after nearly a year and offers nothing of interest. LittleOldMe 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed...Deletion needed. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No links from any other articles so it appears to be completely NN. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Canadian-Bacon. --SonicChao ^talk 22:27, 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 This one needs some kinf of figuring out. I think the consensus (based on policy!) seems to be to delete Daheshism, and keep/cleanup Dr. Dahesh (so I'll also redirect Daheshism to the doctor's article. Proto::type 10:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daheshism[edit]

I... honestly don't know where to begin with this. The article is about a new religion by Dr. Dahesh, who appears to exist. However, both his article and this article are full of tons and tons of original research and grand claims. He appears to be real, but I can't really find any independent verifiable information on him anywhere. Google search for the religion, the person, the person without the pen name, and some books. He also has a museum, but I think there might actually be some sources for that. Wafulz 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Dr. Dahesh on the basis of not being verifiable. --Wafulz 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 04:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above, references to these have been removed from reincarnation. MER-C 05:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously believe this article on Daheshism and the article on Dr. Dahesh should not be deleted, but instead should be saved, and improved with citations, footnotes..etc. The man has quite an impressive legacy in Lebanon and beyond. In NYC there is a museum that houses his art collection, (Dahesh Museum of Art), and there is also a publishing company named after him (the Daheshist Publishing Company) located in the Newsweek building on Columbus Circle, so far they've printed and published over 100 books by and about Dr. Dahesh, and they also publish a fine bilingual (Arabic-English) periodical called Dahesh Voice. That magazine has several contributors with an impressive literary backgrounds, from professors at Ivy league universities to poets and thinkers and cultural figures from around the Middle East and beyond. I personally have known Dr. Dahesh for many years, and read his inspiring books, and believe he has a message worth reading about. GibranM 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Daheshism into Dr. Dahesh. Keep and stub Dr. Dahesh - seems to be fairly notable, even though the article in its current form is 99% original research. --- RockMFR 07:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point RockMFR, I tried to do that in Dr. Dahesh , and hope the page will be saved and won't be deleted. I know additional sources can be brought in, and I will work on that.. especially that I can read Dahesh's original manuscripts in his native Arabic. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.GibranM 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While possible controversial in content, the subject is certainly notable --- Skapur 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no immediate reason to delete this entry. I would suggest a more thorough exploration of the resources listed within the article before reaching any definitive conclusions. I am familiar with several publications listed on the bookstore website that address the existing content from several informed perspectives, including nationally recognized newspaper journals and journalists in Lebanon. Granted Wikipedia is not a proper forum to address the truth claim of principles or beliefs, there is ample evidence to suggest that the general principles and beliefs espoused by Dr. Dahesh are as listed, that a museum and several literary works exist in his name, and that there is a large documented population of individuals who claim to have witnessed events listed, irrespective of the question of personal credibility. --WillH 24:11 28 November 2006

Anything based on "personal credibility" has to be removed as original research. --Wafulz 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand original research as such: "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." There is again a large documented and published population of individuals who claim to have witnessed events listed. I understand the documentation of such claims to be the issue at stake, not the claims themselves. For example, that "Thousands of people (Daheshists, Christians, Druze, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Agnostics,etc.) claim to have witnessed many miracles performed by Dr. Dahesh" is a fact well documented, and I would encourage those interested to investigate the resources listed. Whether or not in the end one chooses to believe their testimony is not a subject of interest for the article, nor should it be. This primarily is what I intended "the question of personal credibility" to mean. Does that make any sense? --WillH 28 November 2006

I find this topic quite fascinating and would like to research it further. I would urge Wikipedia to save and merge both articles on Dr. Dahesh and Daheshism Dmmd206.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pest control. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insect killing[edit]

doesn't cite sources, and there probably aren't many out there. not encyclopedic. --Ybbor ^T 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Pest control - wtfunkymonkey 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pest control seconded - Thatdog 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I suspect that the number of ways one can kill an insect is probably a long enough list to fill an encyclopedia on its own, such a list would certainly constitute original research, unless independent reliable sources could be found. Redirect to Pest control. -- Xtifr _tälk 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per "be bold", "ignore all rules", and "use common sense", I redirected it to Pest control myself. The article before the change to redirect, for those who are interested and still want to "vote", is here: [3]. —EdGl 16:13, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Larratt[edit]

This page seems to be blatant self-promotion from the BME Wiki page of Shannon Larrat [4]. There are no citations and the content reads like a personal website than an encyclopedic article. Metlin 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 04:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete making a career out of being weird on the internet does not make you notable. Opabinia regalis 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web host. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Valrith 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person is notable. ArmAndLeg 09:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: ArmAndLeg: That's from a website run by him. That does not mean much. Moderators: Please note ArmAndLeg's talk page on his user page. Metlin 00:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. WMMartin 17:39, 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 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Kane[edit]

Created by user:Damien Kane. I call that pure spam. -- RHaworth 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as autobiographical. MER-C 04:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion. Seems to be using his userpage that way too. Opabinia regalis 05:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:AUTO, though I'm guessing that the person who actually wrote this is more likely to be a fan than the actual person. If the creator of the article was not user:Damien Kane, I'd probably vote keep per notable wrestler. --- RockMFR 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable wrestler, but delete per above. SupaStarGirl 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notable wrestler, so Keep. I am the son of Damien Kane that happens to have the same name. I set up the user profile in honor of my father and wanted to transfer that info to an article as a school project because my father was a notable wrestler and I would like for him to be remembered for his contribution to wrestling. Damien Kane
Keep: Notable wrestler. Deserves articles regardless of who created it. DCEdwards1966 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:AUTO is not a criterion for deletion. Period. If that is the only violation, it should be kept. Were it a criterion, we would get the absurd scenario that an article's worth depends on how far its author chooses to identify themself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. --- RockMFR 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on condition that someone produces sources. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 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. To explain the decision, the consensus was clearly to merge to Criticism of George W. Bush, with the secondary consensus to delete. However, as the article in question is essentially a list, with no particular content to merge, a merge is not warranted. To merge this content to the Criticism of George W. Bush article would degrade the quality of that article. Following the merge, this article would be deleted, which leads to the decision. If some information from this page needs to be recovered you can ask me or another admin. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the George W. Bush administration on the media[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminated collection of information Alex Bakharev 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe this should turned into some kind of a list? Zarbat 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is hardly indiscriminate; the criticism is well-documented. --Hemlock Martinis 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of George W. Bush. --- RockMFR 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft, parts could be merged as above -- wtfunkymonkey 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or as a second choice merge per RockMFR. All notable criticism of the Bush administration is likely to be in the media (or "on the media" as the creator of this article would say); the criticisms that people make in private conversations don't get documented and included in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 08:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the idea is decent but the article not so much. Needs a rewrite. -Ryanbomber 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as RockMFR said. SupaStarGirl 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RockMFR Lurker ^oi! 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of George W. Bush, another listcruft piece here. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Howrealisreal 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Criticism of George W. Bush is rampant in the media and throughout the land but we don't need another article about it.--Shella * 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.Edison 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Criticism of George W. Bush VegaDark 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Per VegaDark. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per VegaDark. As it stands this is indiscriminate. Nothing is given to show that these criticisms are more notable than others or why. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the need for a redirect. It's not a likely search term, and in fact the title (on the media?) isn't even standard English. How likely is it that anyone is going to be searching for an article with this title rather than "Criticism of George W Bush"? In fact, I think anyone reading that article for the first time who isn't familiar with wikipedia conventions is going to come across it via the George W Bush article. A redirect is not necessary. Lurker ^oi! 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of George W. Bush. Enough has been said about this in other peoples posts.Cman 21:11, 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 Computerjoe 's talk 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CORPS[edit]

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 04:44Z

Delete - no assertion of notability, unreferenced. MER-C 05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corps. Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CORPS is still available as an RPG, and was part of the history that contributed to EABA. It is known among the RPG community. I will add some references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allegrorondo (talk • contribs)
Delete per MER-C. I also note that the only the lead section is about CORPS. Percy Snoodle 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real RPG, existing product. Article could use a rewrite, but at worst, disambig with a redirect to Blacksburg Tactical Research Center. FrozenPurpleCube 15:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C.--Shella * 18:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see no reason to remove this article. CORPS is still available for sale and sees actual play. It is notable in the progression of RPG design and as a current factor in RPG play. -- Joshua BishopRoby 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was not as influential as GURPS but is notable within gaming. Article could use more 3rd-party references. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Tenzer[edit]

Not Notable or Hoax. This "Famous Journalist in the USA" has only two ghits both on the "Communists for Kerry" website. His video-studio refererred produces "wedding photos, etc." No ghists on his Russian name Alex Bakharev 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable other than the website provided from nom itself. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just have started to put all of his bibliographical details Krakadil Gena 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The home page that shows him as a wedding videographer, combined with the lack of ghits, pretty much makes the description as "famous" journalist untenable. Fan-1967 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO.--Shella * 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jamea tus Saifiyah[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 05:30Z

Keep - school with history dating back to early 19th century. Google hits, though not many, look promising: [5]. Kimchi.sg 16:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 192 years old school with sufficient Ghits meets notability for me. The given source link is dead however.--Shella * 18:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Age is not notability. Show us the notability, and I'll vote the other way next time. WMMartin 17:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's international in its reach, and I guess the Google hits are only scratching the surface for this pre-internet institution. I've added a few links. --Mereda 18:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SCHOOLS and every other relevant policy and guideline out there. Silensor 08:16, 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 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kempshott Junior School[edit]

Found speedy-tagged, but not speediable. This is a hopeless sorry excuse for an article, nothing more than a directory entry, sure shouldn't be here in its present form, and doesn't seem to be remotely notable as far as I can tell. It does, however, have the dreaded s-word in it. Opabinia regalis 05:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because the only sentence of substance, "Kempshott Infants School feed children into the juniors", actually makes no sense. Could it have been prodded? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means there's another school for younger students that feeds into this one. Prodding school articles is distinctly unreliable these days. Opabinia regalis 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate article about the district or region. Yet more annoying schoolcruft from the professional school-stub-spammers. I'd say delete, but maybe more merging will help encourage these people to contribute to useful articles. Xtifr _tälk 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Patstuart. Can't somebody think of the children? Sandstein 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the article on canibalism ;-) LittleOldMe 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Kempshott. WP:NOT has to be one of the most abused criteria for deletion in all of Wikipedia. Many articles with significant meaningful content are targeted for deletion because of WP:NOT claiming that the article is a directory entry, when in fact it's a productive article. But if any article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, it's this one, which consists of little more than a name and address. Alansohn 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean there isn't even any real content. I wouldn't object to making redirect however. JoshuaZ 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fact that there's nothing there simply means that a merge will preserve the history (there's really nothing else to preserve), and I see no strong reason not to preserve the history if we make a redirect. Xtifr _tälk 03:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In agreement. However, I don't see anything useful to merge, so just making it a redirect makes more sense. JoshuaZ 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Merge Albatross2147 22:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any reason for that? JoshuaZ 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Redirect if necessary. Eusebeus 12:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to say delete without redirect. It's unlikely that someone will accidentally type in "Kempshott Juinor School" (besides, it would give a confusing search in google), and it's my opinion that we don't want to encourage people to create lousy articles like this. They didn't even bother to check that the formatting looked right. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a directory listing. Principal Schoolswatter 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of notability and assertion thereof. Ohconfucius 09:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability or remarkability or even verifiability, entry appears to be less than a stub and more a listing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WMMartin 17:43, 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 —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 06:48Z

List of bands that could theoretically reform[edit]

Neutral bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 05:45Z

Delete - inheritantly POV Alex Bakharev 05:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the author's userspace as per the comment on the Talk page; "I meant to put this in my user space but put it here accidentially. Delete it if you will, or let's see what happens. Rizzoj". (aeropagitica) 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's already there, so delete. (aeropagitica) 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also indiscriminate, original research and unreferenced. MER-C 06:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aero's comment means it's pretty close to - if not canonically - speediable, since it was accidentally put in article space at editor's own admittance. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 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. Mairi 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Effect[edit]

Interesting, but originial research. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 05:53Z

Delete. No such term shows up on a Google search. See WP:NFT. --Elonka 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also someone has to clean up after a backslashing proxy. MER-C 06:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Interesting concept, but there is no evidence that this theory has been published anywhere. Though I disagree with Elonka's deletion reasoning- simple Google searches are not always enough for something like this. Usually it's better to use information databases (e.g. LexisNexis). --- RockMFR 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, and not many ghits for it either. --SunStar Net 21:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiF 22:51, 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 National Security Agency. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18[edit]

Two sentences of essentially meaningless speculation into a directive that has "apparently been released." Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 05:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read the directive here. I am not sure what to make of it either. I've had it on my watchlist, but never found the time... As I read it now, it appears to be a formerly secret document released in edited form via FOIA which contains a set of instructions for the military on how to conduct spying without implicating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches. - crz crztalk 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns of the original nomination have now been met. Definitely a notable subject. --- RockMFR 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per crz. Delete unless expanded. Wikisource can take the document. ~ trialsanderrors 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ The article doesn't tell us why this government document is more notable than any other random government document on intelligence gathering. There's no mention of any third party coverage, either. Sandstein 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) -- Redirect per crz. Sandstein 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's a lot of internet attention on this from various kooks and conspiracy theorists and ACLU types... - crz crztalk 15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's an article about various SIGINT things including our directive. - crz crztalk 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I figured out what I want to do with this: Information is already contained in National Security Agency, Redirect there. - crz crztalk 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this makes sense. It can have its article if it gets some non-trivial, non-kook coverage. Sandstein 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Vax (vacuum) - Yomangani ^talk 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Brazier[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 05:59Z

Delete (non-notable person) or rename to Vax (vacuum) if the vacuum cleaner brand itself is notable. --- RockMFR 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above...--SUIT 06:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely the slogan is "Nothing sucks like Electrolux!"? ~~I wouldn't be surprised if it was a hoax.~~ LittleOldMe 17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Vax (vacuum). This is not a hoax. This is a real notable inventor, with a meaningful impact on the history of carpet cleaning. Just needs clean up and refs. Look history.Obina 08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it may not be a hoax, but without references and some more facts and biographical information about the man I can hardly see that he qualifies for his own article. At best it can be merged into the Vacuum cleaner article. LittleOldMe 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair point on the article needing fixing. But if you agree the the man is notable, if we keep a stub it can be fixed. We must prevent bias against notable people around before every newspaper was on line. We can fix this, but we'll need to go to a paper library to get the info. Obina 18:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vax (vacuum), helpfully created by Obina (talk • contribs), no merge needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:00, 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 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Downend air crash[edit]

Does not appear to have been a notable air crash. 15 people perished when a Britannia Bristol 301 crashed near Bristol due to mechanical failure. Did not appear to have resulted in any action by the authorities. Gsearches with the words 'Britannia' 'Bristol' '301' 'crash' did not give any meaningful results irrespective of where the double quotes were put: All hits were from wiki or wiki mirrors, except 2 links to databases specifically dedicated to air-crashes. This accident is simply not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. DeleteOhconfucius 06:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge with Bristol Britannia. Apparently there was only one prototype of this specific type, according to the Bristol Britannia article. Certainly worthy of a mention. --- RockMFR 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with partial merge to Bristol Britannia, worth a mention as a significant accident, but we don't have enough information for a full article. We don't include passenger lists, and the rest can be summarized in a sentence or two in the plane article. The other reference is [6], by the way. It has a fuller description of the crash. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have several articles about air crashes with fewer fatalities than this, and I believe fatal crashes of aircraft the size of a Bristol Britannia are notable. For another reference which might have some more information, check out this entry on the aviation-safety site. (The list of casualties can go however, it is true that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we have traditionally not included such lists in our disaster articles.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: other articles are irrelevant, see WP:INN. Xtifr _tälk 11:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... interesting essay but I do think it is fair to look and compare the article which is being discussed with other articles on similar subjects. Some consistency is fair because a reader might wonder "why do you not have an article on this, when you have an article on that?" Now, on AFD there is some precedent on aviation incidents, but generally the ones I have seen deleted are either those on crashes that involved a small general aviation aircraft, or those which are about emergency landings and other incidents where the plane and passengers were not in any real danger. In fact, incidents involving large aircraft which were in grave peril are frequently quite notable, even if the outcome was nonfatal. In this case we have an article on a large aircraft disaster with as many as 15 fatalities, and I think the only reason there is not more internet coverage on it is that it happened a long time before the internet was conceived. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There is a feeling that accidents to commercial aircraft (as opposed to incidents, which are minor events where nobody dies and the aircraft is not substantially damaged) are inherently notable. Also, the first accident involving a specific model, any terrorist attacks, accidents that have a significant impact on any field (air traffic control, design, manufacturing standards, etc.), or historically significant accidents are usually considered notable. An accident that caused four deaths may be notable if it makes a major airline sell off part of its fleet, for instance. --Charlene 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in general for aircrashes with many civilian casualties (those always get a lot of contemporary media attention). Keep in particular this one since it seems to be verifiably notable even with Google, as evidenced by the links given above (certainly the Aviations safety one), and this 60 minute documentary made about it by 1st Take[7]. There was an article about it in issue 63 (summer 1995) of the magazine"Propliner"[8], but I am not able to check the actual contents (perhaps someone else will be able to do this).
Keep; precedence is important, and major airplane crashes with more than a dozen or so fatalities are rare and noted (by the magazine article noted by the person above, for example), hence notable.--Prosfilaes 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable because: a) it was the first accident of the Britannia (generally, first accidents of commercial aircraft models are considered notable); b) the probable cause of the accident prompted changes in how a manufacturer handled quality control; and c) the accident was another nail in the coffin for the Bristol Aeroplane Company, which shortly after the Britannia crash ended up being forced into a merger. --Charlene 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable for extent of fatalities and for history of model and manufacturer. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airliner crashes with multiple fatalities often recieve enough coverage to write an encyclopedia article around. Ergo notable, ergo keep. --Jayron 32 05:19, 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. It's patently unclear, after all this procedural bureaucracy, that "Spanish Gibraltarian" is a neutral term. AfD does have a responsibility to eliminate POV forks when they come down the pike, and I see no reason not to confirm the findings of the previous debate. However, the most important problem is that there is no assertion of notability nor proof that this particular sub-group has played an important role of the history of Gibraltar since the British occupation. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural update: 70 revisions restored: per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December. `'mikkanarxi 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians[edit]

Article was rewritten and renamed towards the end of the prior AfD and restored after a WP:DRV decision. Relisting is procedural, so I abstain. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge. Seems to be a valid fork of Gibraltar. Based on the ramblings of the previous AfD, there seems to be a larger POV dispute going on here. AfD doesn't seem like the proper place for the handling of this article. --- RockMFR 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/rename. I understand the title is offensive to some Gibraltarians, but I think a better name could be chosen. - Francis Tyers · 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment another option would be to make the page a disambiguation page. It already covers three particular meanings of the term. Some of the extraneous information could be stripped out and it could be left in the form of a dab page. - Francis Tyers · 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article is a rehash of a previous on that was sucecessfully subject Afd and the history of the Spanish occupation of Gibraltar is fully covered in the article history of Gibraltar 99% of Gibraltarians do not want any connection with Spain.[9]

More detail and a Comment on Gibnews' points by the author of this article (moved to talk page --Gibnews 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — if we take away the elements that are already covered in History of Gibraltar, San Roque, Spain#History, Culture of Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar, we're left with a small organization that doesn't assert notability. Yes, Culture of Gibraltar has severe pro-Gibraltarian POV problems; but this problem won't be solved by creating a POV fork. Demiurge 11:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article gives three definitions. The first, which comprises the first three paragraphs, is the part that is a recreation of the "original inhabitants" article for which a consensus to delete was established, and appears to have been created primarily to promote a probably-not-notable organisation of Spanish families who claim descent from the people who left Gibraltar rather than submit to British rule. This appears all to be covered already in the San Roque article.
The second and third, which I believe are new, again appear either to duplicate material in other articles, or to consist of original and unreliable research (in Britain it is not common to use the term "Spanish Gibraltarian" at all, and one citation from 1890 -- claimed here as the first, though without any evidence either way -- hardly counters that fact).
Basically, appears to be a POV fork combining existing information that's already covered better in other articles, and with a very rare term used for the title (<100 Google hits for "spanish gibraltarian", many of which are for things like "the Spanish/Gibraltarian border"). Propose that the author would better spend his efforts working with other Wikipedians to improve the existing articles. — Haeleth Talk 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - inherently POV title - no such thing as Spanish Gibraltarians - you're either one or the other, as Gibraltar is not in Spain. Duplicates information better presented elsewhere (as per Demiurge), with some POV stuff added. Proto::type 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth. What happened to the people that left Gibraltar after the British conquest is of encyclopedic relevance, but probably not here and in that form. Sandstein 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RockMFR. As for "you're either one or the other, as Gibraltar is not in Spain" i must remind people that we have African American, Arab Israeli, etc... -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid term. Lurker ^oi! 16:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep': Its only just been undeleted. It is NPOV, has valid references and is no less valid than an article on Irish Americans, Asian British or Moroccan Spaniards.... The history of Spaniards in Gibraltar, is of interest in wikipedia, as is the history of Maltese, Sephardic or Genoese Gibraltarians. These communities are also worthy of an article.--Burgas00 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article gives its references clearly and apparently only offers as its mandate the various meanings and usages of this ethnic identification term. The article almost certainly has NPOV issues (made clear by this discussion if nothing else) but secondary source references and limited mandate seem to show it is neither OR nor a hoax...so any problems are an issue for article editors to work out, not AfD. Regarding arguments above that "edit wars are inevitable" I'd only say we shouldn't delete decently researched articles because problems MAY happen in the future. -Markeer 17:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per reasons already given. GiollaUidir 20:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't need more POV forks. It's extremely unlikely you can make this NPOV since most of the article, if you take away what's covered elsewhere, is bits and pieces. Too much seems very .. close .. to OR. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- original research Astrotrain 21:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the OR? I see multiple references, and a google search shows the term is used in media sources. Lurker ^oi! 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's a definate segment of the Gibraltar population. --Oakshade 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) After giving a another close read of this, I'm going to go with Weak Keep. There is a POV bent to it and I never like that. I always say that means the content should be changed, not the article deleted. I understand this is a passionate issue in Gibraltar (having been there, I've discussed it with locals), but this was a historic part of Gibraltar, even under British rule and that can't be ignored. This reminds me of the article Whites in Zimbabwe. That segment has heavily dissipated over the years and even if it totally disappears, the subject still would be relevant even for historical reasons. --Oakshade 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, it's obvious that this is intended as a POV fork, but there may be some grounds for a brief description somewhere of Gibraltans of Spanish origin. Lankiveil 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename and keep, I propose Descendants of Spanish Gibraltarians, or Rename and merge. Randroide 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far it seems the vote is split roughly 50/50. Anyone has any constructive criticisms of the article (i.e. changing stuff which may be POV)? I certainly can find nothing. I erased all the stuff about the behaviour of the British during the occupation precisely to keep it neutral and non-partisan.... I guess the main question to ask is the following: Would an article on Maltese Gibraltarians be opposed by those who want to delete this article? If not. Why? --Burgas00 02:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? UEFA --Gibnews

What does UEFA have to do with the Maltese Gibraltarians?

Nothing, its the Spanish Government, acting illegally again trying to deny the existance of the Gibraltarians who are not Spanish --Gibnews

Delete This isn't a vote, as I pointed out to User:Burgas00 (who is the original author of this article) in the comments made in the original nomination Originary Inhabitants of Gibraltar. User:Burgas00 renamed/moved this article after several delete recommendations had been made to Spanish Gibraltarians and this avoided the deletion as onlt the re-direct was deleted at closure of the AfD process. Now that this article has been nominated, I suppose we can expect to see this kind of tactic again. So, all that said, what are my reasons for deletion? I recommended deletion previously, as the original article was misleading, heavily POV and in places wrong. This article has become what we can now see, which is still POV (and making a POV fork), the facts are disputed, and the topic is about a very minor and not notable segment of Gibraltrian inhabitants who decided not to leave Gibraltar after British conquest who (more than 250 years later) still consider themselves Spanish and the "Heirs of Gibraltar". If there is anything of note in this article it belongs in the main Gibraltar articles, NOT on it's own page. Delete this and whatever else User:Burgas00 decides to rename the article as next. Robovski 23:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Robovski, by your comment it is clear to me that you have neither read the article nor the sources before giving your opinion. I would also like to point out that this article has been undeleted and is now relisted procedurally. It is not here because of any "tactic" of mine. Please assume good faith. --Burgas00 23:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The Spanish occupation of Gibraltar is already covered elsewhere. Gibraltarian is a present-day term describing the people born in and of Gibraltar. They are British, not Spanish, by birthright and NOT Spanish. Proof? Gibraltar is British territory, not Spanish territory .This article promotes the +wishful+ Spanish POV which denies Gibraltarians exist as a distinct people and should be removed. (Unregd. user)

Comment I've had enough of people using AfD in order to promote a particular viewpoint. I think this should be a procedural keep, AfD is for deciding whether or not articles belong on Wikipedia, not a space to rant about articles you disagree with. Lurker ^oi! 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment racist rubbish does not belong. --Gibnews
Delete, whilst Merging verifiable sentences into main Gibraltar articles. WMMartin 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 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noyes Cultural Center[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 06:45Z

Delete - Nothing of encyclopedic value. LittleOldMe 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a former resident of Evanston this isn't notable, although of the tenants at least the Piven Theater should be (important local drama school, founded by parents of Jeremy Piven), and Light Opera Works already has an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:48, 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 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising 2.0[edit]

Bump from prod. The article may be original research-y right now, but I believe there should be an article (or section in Web 2.0) on this topic, given the amount of attention the media and business communitee are giving it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 07:00Z

Delete. Original research. Concept must have been invented fairly recently considering that the article says it emerged in late 2006...... --- RockMFR 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0 per 2.0 above 2.0. We'll let this neologism mature a bit before writing a sourced and verifiable article about it. MER-C 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam 2.0, non-notable 2.0, neologism 2.0. no reliable sources 2.0. Original research 2.0. Annoying v99.53. Xtifr _tälk 11:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nomination to begin with. I don't know why you removed my prod tag. It was a clear cut case and there was even an additional supporter of the prod. MartinDK 12:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YAWN- Yet Another Web Neologism Lurker ^oi! 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire 2.0 fad as non-notable neologism riding on the coattails of Web 2.0. adding ~ism on the end of each noun or person's name is bad enough. then people started copying Steve Jobs by putting i-~ in front of everything, but at least those are mainly brand names. Nuke the lot. Ohconfucius 07:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Sloan[edit]

Bump from prod. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 07:17Z

Speedy Delete - Nothing there, let alone anything notable. El Zoof 07:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I know nothing. El Zoof 06:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "publisher of Slate Magazine" is an assertion of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 08:02Z
Weak Keep, I think he's just about notable enough to be here. yandman 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established. Thatdog 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slate Magazine is notable, and hence its publisher is. It's a stub, but it can be expanded. SupaStarGirl 14:22, 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 16:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Jennings[edit]

Musician in college with very thin notability claims: Won two awards for performing at local music competitions. Does not seem to have made a record on a notable label. Andrew Levine 07:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Music in the Parks advanced...what? That's just a student's festival, isn't it? Notability not asserted, delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Music is a minor interest to the individual base on the statement "attends Southeastern Illinois College majoring in law and minoring in music". LittleOldMe 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:49, 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 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Keane[edit]

NN, the founder of a UK company which seem to do mainly software for high-school revisions; no relevant Google hits. I'd suggest to merge with Counting Thoughts, the company, but it is also tagged {{nn}}. Schutz 07:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 07:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted. Sources, anyone? - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. LittleOldMe 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am Aidan Keane and I would like this article deleted. I did not approve of this article in the first place. Please DO NOT merge it with Counting Thoughts, thank you. Fcs482d 21:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Thomen[edit]

NN, despite being a candidate of the Texas State Board of Education. Schutz 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Schutz 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per WP:BIO RichMac 08:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable election candidate as per WP:BIO. MER-C 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Article failsWP:BIO Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:06, 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 CSD G11. Kimchi.sg 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Clark (Internet Marketer)[edit]

Contested prod of what appears to be a self-written promotional article by an internet marketer/podcaster. Has no outside references affirming notability, nor any indication of meeting WP:BIO. --Elonka 07:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Support As per above.RichMac 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not clear whether you're supporting the article or supporting the deletion. "Per above" makes me think you mean the latter. Is that correct? Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. yandman 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant spam (CSD G11) or simply Delete as non-notable, fails to meet WP:BIO, no reliable sources for verifiability concerns, possible WP:COI, and probable WP:SPAM. Xtifr _tälk 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's obviously advertising. Lurker ^oi! 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy-Patrice Lumumba[edit]

In accordance with WP:BIO. Article does not assert sufficient notability. Person is relative of prominent politician and ran receiving less than 1% of vote. RichMac 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He was a real candidate in the DR of Congo and it's not like he was a failed candidate for a local office. Running for national office of a large nation can be notable even if you don't win. Liz White (politician), who received only 72 votes in Canada, has an article. Even people known for being running mates of failed third-party Presidential candidates in the US have articles, see Margaret Trowe or Chuck Baldwin.--T. Anthony 09:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mer-C. As for Liz White, at al, WP:INN. Tonywalton | Talk 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True on the INN deal, but when the son of a leader of a large nation goes on to run for President of that nation it is potentially notable. His name is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006 article. Do you suggest it be removed or left as a permanent red-link? At the very least the article is potentially notable enough to be given a year. If in July 2007 it's still not much of anything I'll AfD it myself.--T. Anthony 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you can also unlink it in that article, instead of the two choices you present. Fram 16:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. I'm just saying he had a place in that election and that election is fairly notable. The Lumumba legacy, whatever it might be, was also a part of that election. There was a Unified Lumumbist Party, which he was running against. There is a potential irony/curiosity/relevance to how he relates to Lumumbism. (even if turns out such a thing only exists in peoples' minds) That said I would not be horrified by it being merged to Patrice Lumumba.--T. Anthony 14:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Abstain per points made by others. Tonywalton | Talk 10:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tonywalton already said exactly what I was going to say (his comments weren't visible to me till I clicked the edit link). Xtifr _tälk 11:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There have been some interesting points raised, and I'm not sure enough of any position at this point to raise a solid argument either way, so I'm simply going to withdraw from the debate, though I will watch with interest. Xtifr _tälk 03:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Congo is a country of 30 million people. It's not really saying that much that all candidates for president should have an article on them, no matter how minor. As for Tonywalton's response, we can't ignore WP:BIAS; deleting articles on Congoan presidential candidates and leave articles on Canadian candidates, which is not coincidental, is a clear example of bias.--Prosfilaes 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found that article via Special:Random. If I had come across a similar article from a Canadian candidate I would have nominated it as such. This is the first African or politician article I have nominated. The accusasion of bias is completely uncalled for. I will also be nominating Liz White (politician) later. So that an open debate can be brought forward over it's legitimacy. RichMac (Talk) 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS is not about personal bias; it's about systematic bias. It's about how every politician in the English speaking world has someone to tell their story in obscene detail and justify their notability, but Nigerian politicians don't.--Prosfilaes 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think your motives were fine. You saw a paltry article on a failed candidate. I'd just agree with the above that when an article is on a failed candidate in DR of Congo their paltriness may be because of systematic issues. If Clifton Truman Daniel ran for President as an independent, and received only 0.4% of the vote, he would most likely have an article rather than be a red-link. That he was a minor candidate wouldn't make his run non-notable.--T. Anthony 06:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of multiple non-trival published works. just do a google for his name. [10] [11] He's got more of a claim to fame than Michael Badnarik. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:BIO as he was profiled/interviewed frequently during the campaign. Candidacy had historical resonance in Congo (and maybe, judging by the results, more for observers of Congo). --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A failed candidate isn't necessarily notable, and neither is the son of a former president. But being both of these things makes for fairly substantial notability. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Night Gyr and Dhartung; appears to meet BIO. -Kubigula (ave) 21:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Seventeen[edit]

Porn business that is, as far as I can tell, non-notable. - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked this one over a couple times and couldn't come to any conclusion. The entirety of the adult-film related material on WP is difficult to categorize. A lot of it is flagrant self-promotion and some of it is about companies that command a very large industry. "Club Seventeen" gets 133,000 Google Results. RichMac 09:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Web results are meaningless when it comes to pornography. See Wikipedia:Search engine test#Non-applicable_in_some_cases.2C_such_as_pornography. Uncle G 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google hits are meaningless and there is simply no reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate this meets WP:WEB criteria.--Isotope23 16:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concer. I was simply noting how difficult it is to sort through the muck when it comes to adult industries online. RichMac (Talk) 02:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per all the above (although I do use this site a lot for research). Wavy G 02:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the original Seventeen is notable as the article points out because its product was potentially child pornography under US law. This business is just trading on that notoriety. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. No assertion of notability and original research of the worst kind. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:54, 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. Mairi 06:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhamra Fiasco[edit]

This entire thing smacks of a hoax. The whole premise is suspect: why would a student try to get a professor's attention -- make that, a professor who was visiting the university to give a talk -- by repeatedly calling his first name during a presentation? Google has one hit for this, which is this article. I was at UBC in March 2006, and there was no coverage of this in the student media. The article has no references, and I highly doubt that the Georgia Straight would have covered something so trivial. Anyway, a search on the Straight's website returns exactly no hits for "Bhamra" or "Bhamra Fiasco." How this avoided detection for so long, I don't know. Exploding Boy 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious hoax. Demiurge 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likewise have heard absolutely nothing about this 'incident'. Hoax or completely non-notable. RichMac 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero non-wiki ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 08:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN if not a hoax. The only reference provided is a freebie entertainment weekly, not a reliable source. Tubezone 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense/unsourced. To be honest, it might be speediable as an attack page. Morwen - Talk 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and a very likely a hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 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 the article has been blanked twice, which I take to be an author request. Even if not, it meets G11 requirements. theProject 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowdancers[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement and an attempt to promote this company's arguments in a legal dispute. WP:NOT a free web host. The company doesn't strike me as obviously notable per WP:CORP, and at any rate no external links are provided to support any claim to notability. PROD and speedy tags have been removed by the article's author. Sandstein 08:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. RichMac 08:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising/using wikipedia as a web host/non-notable/WP:CORP failure. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 08:49, 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. Mairi 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer-In-Hand (2nd nomination)[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer-In-Hand (relist nomination)

Bump from prod. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 08:42Z

Delete - wikipedia is not for something you made up one day, without sources this falls well into WP:BULL country, no relevant ghits that I can see. I'd suspect that this could easily be speedied with WP:SNOW -- wtfunkymonkey 08:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, non-verifiable, unsourced original research article on a drinking game made up in the pub. Tonywalton | Talk 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious really. --Folantin 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above arguments and Wikipedia is not for things made up on St. Patricks Day. One question: Isn't there a no drinking rule when voting given that this passed a previous AfD he he ;) MartinDK 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:NFT is not a criterion for speedy deletion... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without sources this is just one of a thousand non-notable student drinking games. (aeropagitica) 18:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources provided to allow a verifiable article to be written. By sources, I mean third-party publications that discuss the game, its creation, and/or its cultural impact, not just a listing of the rules in a drinking game book. -- saberwyn 20:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BOLLOCKS. Moreschi 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#ArticlesWP:CSD, A1. If it survives SD, then Delete as per WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NFT/WP:OR and WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, row 2, as WP:NEO. This is a non-article, with no verifiability, and appears to have been made up by college kids recently. Concur that a vague mention in a list of drinking games (which isn't even cited in the "article" anyway, so of no relevance here) isn't verifiability in any meaningful sense. Re: above comments — WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:BULL and WP:SNOW are not actionable, and neither right now is WP:N (it is Disputed). If you're going to comment for deletion, folks, at least make sure the critieria you choose are meaningful in the AfD/SD context. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Nothing wrong with it being listed on Drinking games, but it simply doesn't have enough going for it to be an entire article. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — there was also uncontroverted consensus to remove any mention of "beer-in-hand" from the Glossary of pool, billiards and snooker terms. This removal was performed quite some time ago, before the Glossary became its own article I believe. That is to say, support for this topic from the billiards corner is non-existent; any support it may have would only be coming from the drinking games or memes perpspectives, and I don't even see any of that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:40, 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 (G11). theProject 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ectagon[edit]

Well, blow me down! The article is authored by Ectagon, it spells an immediate conflict of interest. No alexa rank and 194 unique Ghits, including many which are for directories or portals with hundres of bare links, and some hits for ectagon.se, an unrelated entity. Ohconfucius 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 08:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article was made to help "Ectagon", not wikipedia. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Islam and Christianity[edit]

Written as essay. Contains original research in violation of wikipedia policy.

I am also nominating Focus on crimes against women, by the same user, for the same reasons. Andjam 09:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add Academia/Women in Islam and Christianity, which is by the same author. ... discospinster _talk 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he's even signed it as an essay... I propose he moves it to academia.wikia before it gets zapped. yandman 09:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's even made an eponymous category for himself: Category:Riffat Hassan. I also vote that category and its contents be nuked as well. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. MER-C 12:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Whoever closes this make sure to get all the duplicate of these under different titles. Morwen - Talk 14:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. If you want to write your essay, sorry not here. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thoughts. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. It's also not very NPOV. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the bits and pieces (including the other articles in his category) as OR. And possibly some other things, too, but OR mainly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Danny Lilithborne 11:25, 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 CSD G11. Kimchi.sg 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ionworx[edit]

Article (non-blanked version) is an advert, creator removed speedy tag twice. Derlay 09:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. Creators cannot remove speedy tags. MER-C 09:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11 - wtfunkymonkey 11:25, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the same reasons. When such material evolves from rumours to become non-crystal ballish material, the article may be recreated. theProject 12:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 8 was just deleted yesterday, this has even less reason to exist. Derlay 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mer. yandman 09:46, 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 Redirect to DC++. Yomangani ^talk 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Sieka[edit]

Non-notable, only known for DC++. Memmke 09:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not because he is not notable. It's strange to claim that the lead developer of a piece of software as well known as DC++ would be non-notable -- I'd like to think producing something like that grants them at least a hint of notability -- but the real problem here is that his biography is unsourceable. As notable as he may be, without secondary sources it cannot be verified, hence the delete vote. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DC++ if that's all he's known for. ColourBurst 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect He is also part of the development team for gtkextramm. However, I must agree with Daveydweeb that the article is unsourceable. I don't think the article should be deleted, but redirect to DC++ to show that he is notable. Ullner 12:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is fine by me. Memmke 08:55, 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. Proto::type 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valknut (software)[edit]

Yet another piece of non-notable open source software that fails the WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Memmke 09:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not policy. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. yandman 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is in Debian Stable [12], which is a criteria for WP:SOFTWARE --GargoyleMT 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Note that 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. Statistics such as the Debian Popularity Contest help to estimate the usage of particular packages in a particular distribution". In the test, Valknut is at the bottom. yandman 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Valknut is one of only two actively developed Direct Connect file sharing clients for Linux (that I know of; the other is LinuxDC++). I'm enough of a new user that I'm not sure which guidelines to cite. Plus this is the third Direct Connect related AfD nomination (all of which happened recently), so I'm still learning the AfD ropes. --GargoyleMT 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is also in FreeBSD [13], which is also a criteria for WP:SOFTWARE bheekling 07:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other distributions include Fedora Core. Nysin 08:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not in Fedora Core, it's in Fedora Extras. Memmke 08:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, indeed. Nysin 08:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable by relative notability. Valknut is the most notable GUI Linux DC client. Would you say that NetBSD is non-notable just because of low usage rates? - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 23:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Green (rapper)[edit]

Procedural nomination completing a malformed nomination by J.R. Hercules with the text: Vanity article. Non-notable individual. Claim of being "nominated for an SRA Student Radio Award in 2005 as Best Specialist Music Program" -- a dubious claim to fame to begin with -- isn't even supported by the accompanying reference link J.R. Hercules 02:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC). No vote from me. --ais523 09:53, 22 November 2006 (U T C)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be established. LittleOldMe 17:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely NN rapcruftvanispamtisement. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mention in Metro means nothing: I know as I read it every day. Hey, even my kid sister got a an article in the local paper the other week. Moreschi 09:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as shameless self-glorification (or mindless idolisation) The Crying Orc 11:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my earlier reasons as quoted by ais523J.R. Hercules 22:03, 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 08:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinsenior[edit]

Protologism. Zero google hits, zero google scholar hits. Weregerbil 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT was written for this kind of stuff. ~ trialsanderrors 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really WAS made up in school. Throw this under the school bus. Tubezone 10:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 11:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well understood, however... "Wikipedia isn't a publisher of first instance. It isn't here to promote new things and spread new knowledge; it's here to collect, condense, and summarize what has already been promoted - and what has passed certain tests. Most encyclopedias are written this way. If you find yourself arguing that your Wikipedia article is necessary because no one else has written about your new invention yet, you're breaking the original research rule."

This has been previously published as a thesis, promoted and accepted by a scholastic committee, and was inserted to collect as part of list of colloquial terms and their history. Colloquialisms are covered as legitimate and because they are not part of a classical tradition does not disclude them from reality, or else pop culture and folk tradition would be disallowed. NateDsaint 10:09, Nov. 22 2006 (UTC)

That's all swell, but the phrase has to establish notability to be included. Zero ghits pretty much establishes non-notability, also see WP:NEO. Even if the word had notability, as a colloquialism, it probably ought to go into Wiktionary as a definition, not in the encyclopedia. The fact that the word is part of collection of obscure colloquialisms used in a school would seem to reinforce the WP:NFT argument to delete, albeit on a higher scholastic plane than that argument is typically used in. IOW, the standard applies whether it's made up in grad school and written in a thesis, or made up in kindergarten and written in crayon. Tubezone 07:17, 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 16:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kompression Dreamcast Video Disc[edit]

Proprietary compression format, Google hits = zero. No independent sources, the sources at the bottom smack of spam. trialsanderrors 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is totally unverifiable. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 11:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 11:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kompress...what? Delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G11 - pure spam and nothing else. --tgheretford (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the leader in speedy delete, this is G11 News: AfD Edition. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, DcVD seems to be a copy of this. Marasmusine 14:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - A thick juicy slice of spam! DarkSaber2k 15:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course... -- lucasbfr ^talk 05:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALLRIGHT, GUYS- Do You Own A Dreacmast? If you want proof I will upload an iso! As I said, it is a PROPRIETARY format. aka unnoficial. It is true testament to the DC's Video rendering abilities, and should be known one way or another. Like it or not, it is certanly real. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.60.30 (talk • contribs) .
- We don't debate whether it is real or not, but if it notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read our policy What Wikipedia is not to understand our views. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:09, 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 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4231 menu[edit]

This article was prodded, the prod was endorsed, and the article was deleted. After the deletion was contested at DRV, this article was undeleted. I believe that it should be deleted via AfD though, per WP:Not an instruction manual and verifiability issues. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen enough web references to this kind of thing to believe that it's not a rank hoax, but WP:NOT a Guide To Hacking Coke Machines Tubezone 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a how-to for a concept of of no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source is "i-hacked.com"??? SupaStarGirl 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT, WP:V, very unencyclopedic article. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator's reasoning that WP:Not an instruction manual.--Isotope23 15:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it can be edited so that it is not an instruction manual. Also I need time to preserve it in my user space! 'FL a RN' (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a means of accessing the sales data on a Coke machine. And ... ? Delete. Chris talk back 20:25, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Kishline[edit]

Is there something very notable about this engineer that I'm missing here? It talks about producing things for companies and provides his former address. I'm not sure what's notable -- certainly nothing that's said in the article. theProject 12:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state. Unless reliable sources can be found, then this article has to be deleted. --SunStar Net 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something smells fishy here - biographies shouldn't give out exact addresses. In any case, delete unless sources are provided. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value. LittleOldMe 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, birth/death checks out via the Social Security Death Index, and he seems to have worked for Graham-Paige as chief engineer per an A9.com result, but nothing else seems notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Article created by family member, perhaps ? WMMartin 17:53, 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 speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Interest[edit]

As stated in a prod two months ago which was removed by the article's creator: "No evidence provided that this internet television show has come to general public attention. Title is a common expression so a Google search is inconclusive." theProject 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, web content which fails to assert notability under CSD-A7. Demiurge 12:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So tagged. MER-C 12:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD-A7. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:01, 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 Redirect to Criminal record. Agent 86 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rap sheet[edit]

Procedural nomination for Wikipedian27 (talk · contribs). The version before the afd tag was applied is here. On the basis of that, I'd say transwiki to Wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 13:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to criminal record. Kimchi.sg 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. LittleOldMe 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ditto. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:21, 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 no consensus. The article was significantly expanded from when it was first listed to address concerns regarding references and validation of notability. However, the consesus on notability is still not established either way, so I'm closing this now as no consensus. If the nominator or others wish, they may relist this after a reasonable period. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The noob[edit]

The article makes no claims of notability for this comic, which fails WP:WEB as far as I can tell. Contested prod. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the speedy deletion nomination.

I agree that the article is worthy of discussion for inclustion/exclusion, but by adding the "speedy" deletion, you eliminate a significant amount of the time for other authors on the subject to weigh in and work on the article enough to meet the requirements for inclusion to wikipedia. IMHO

I also belive that deleting this article contradicts the effort to "...an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. " Timmccloud 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"I am Gianna Masetti, the author of the webcomic. As the copyright holder of The Noob, I give Wikipedia editors permission to use text or image material from the comic for the purpose of updating its Wikipedia entry. My only request to the authors and editors of the entry is that it should be strictly informational and it should respect the guidelines of the website."

I have included this item in this discussion as some of the images I am trying to upload to support my position are being deleted. Timmccloud 14:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on references to prove notability of the article. However I do have a real job, and research like this takes time. I request a suspension of the speedy deletion for at least 2 weeks, while I work with the author and other sources to refine the article.

Why did this get deleted?? We were working on the content, providing valueable infomrmation to make it meet the noteworthyness of wikipedia!! I thought wikipedia gave discussions on articles, not just carte blanch deletions?? (edited into sentance case, as I'm less hysterical about this now... Timmccloud 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your own policy states "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus" It's been a total of 5 hours - that's not FIVE DAYS. How do I contest this? (edit: less hysteria) Timmccloud 15:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tim, that was my fault. I didn't spot the article was at AFD, and speedy tagging it was not a great idea. I have already restored it so the discussion can take place. Delete is my vote, by the way, as the article fails both WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Proto::type 15:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Proto. The speedy tagging was not my idea, it was MER-C and BradBeattie who added that tag. I tried to remove it, but they put it back, so I figured I had to leave it. The author is working on trying to comply with the copyright restrictions on images so I hope to upload the image a thrid time with an appropriate permission.
- Comment. I'd like to clarify that at no point did I flag this article for speedy deletion. I prodded the article, yes, but that is by no means a speedy delete. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Clairfication. Yes, now that the history is restored, I can see that the speedy was entirely MER-C, yours was just the basic tag for AFD. I stand humbly corrected Timmccloud 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem with getting the external references... in the authors own words... "Ah well, unfortunately when someone asked me for an image or two for magazine articles I never thought of asking them for a link or a reference - I'm absent minded" Timmccloud 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable article, because it presents some facets of the current MMORPG culture in a humourous way, and funny to people who are not into these games too. With the recent attention in the popular media to MMORPG games I think that it would be worthwile to keep an article on this comic on Wikipedia. The article itself is still a stub, and should be expanded. Keep. --Krator 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added external reference and quote from outside reviewer as to this comics unique place in the webcomic genre - btw, as the proponent of the article (and apparently current author) can I vote Keep too? Timmccloud 15:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article NOW makes claims of notability

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. - this has been shown, specifically a review in http://comixpedia.com

The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. - this has been demonstrated, winning an honorable mention at the Web Cartoonist choice awards in 2005

The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. this is being done by mmorpg.com on their comics page.

- Friends, please review in light of the current edits. Can I change your mind? Timmccloud 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is now well on its way to being a very nice article that should serve as an example for our webcomics stubs. Un focused 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but it still gives no indication of meeting WP:WEB, or of being in any other way notable. Hilariously funny, yes, but that's not a criterion for having an article in an encyclopedia. If it had actually won a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award, that would presumably be enough to pass the inclusion guidelines (though, given the number of those awards given out each year, I'd call that a technicality at best), but I don't think honorable mentions count. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails WP:WEB (which is a touch policy) -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification It does not fail WP:WEB, as it meets #3 of that policy. The Noob is published on mmorpg.com which is a well-known site independent of the creator of the comic. One could argue that it meets #1 too, but I won't. --Krator 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Even though Krator wont, I will assert that it does not fail WP:WEB, as it meets #1 of that policy being reviewed to critical acclaim by http://comixpedia.com, a consortium of webcomic peers that has been around for three years, and includes more than 90 constant contributors on a daily baisis. That means it meets TWO criteria of WP:WEB, when in many articles on wikipedia, it only meets one, yet the articles have remained. Timmccloud 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no verified information from third-party reputable sources, Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Comixpedia reviews and WCCAs are trivial. -- Dragonfiend 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto Dragonfiend. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, This is from Gianna Masetti, the author of the comic in question. I didn't write the article on Wikipedia (it's the work of readers) and didn't mind either way if it was deleted or not because I am happy to abide to Wikipedia's self-policing by its users - if the entry about my work breaks any rules, then it shouldn't be here. However it seems to me that this objectivity doesn't really exist - after reading that "Comixpedia reviews and WCCAs are trivial", I checked several articles that were created or edited by Dragonfiend (who made that statement) - and their only references (and therefore claims to presence on Wikipedia, according to the notability rules) are sites like Comixpedia and WCCA. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but I don't see how these sites can be trivial in my case and non-trivial in the case of the entries written by Dragonfiend - forgive me if I feel insulted.
- Comment: Hi Gianna, I certainly don't mean to insult you. Which articles were you looking at before you made your comment that several articles I've created and/or edited have their only references as sites like Comixpedia and those Web Cartoonist Awards? Check the references of the webcomics related articles I've created, including Amy Kim Ganter, Dicebox, Drew Weing, Gene Yang, Lea Hernandez, Metaphrog, Nowhere Girl, Raina Telgemeier, Svetlana Chmakova, Tom Hart (comics), and When I Am King. I don't think I've ever created a stub article that didn't have a reference section with multiple non-trivial sources. The webcomics-related articles I've editd generally do as well, like Fetus-X, Get Your War On, Girlamatic, Joe Zabel, Leisure Town, Narbonic, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Sluggy Freelance, etc. I take it you were looking at some webcomics articles I've made minor edits to that are currently poorly sourced and need to be either deleted or improved? Which ones were you looking at? Dragonfiend 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you list also pages where you did minor edits I stand corrected. It was an entry that you had edited which had Webcomic Examiner reviews and WCCA as references. An entry that you created (you will know which one but I won't name it because I don't want to start witch hunts resulting in the deletion of more webcomic articles), has as notability references just one paragraph on The Village Voice lamenting an omission of it from some previous article and a review on the Daily Oklahoman. Now, the D.O. may be a daily newspaper, but how are Comixpedia, a news website specifically dedicated to webcomics, or the WCCA, more trivial or less reputable than D.O. where webcomics are concerned?

Keep - Large, developed, sourced and accurate. There are some issues with tone of voice, but those can be overcome. If notability is the concern, do I need to refer to the dreaded Pokémon test? Seriously, less notable articles than this have been kept before. It'd be a travesty to see the article go. –Xoid 04:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 inspiration. Kimchi.sg 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire[edit]

Unsourced and crystal-ballish. Unless verified and notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy revert to this version. MER-C 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, redirect to Inspiration? I can live with that. --Nlu (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted. Feel free to close this debate if no objections are raised. MER-C 14:10, 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 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of kayak clubs[edit]

This article has degenerated into a link farm with blatant advertising. Short of a major cleanup, I propose that the entire page be deleted and that the list of kayak clubs be generated by a kayak club category (if it doesn't already exist). LittleOldMe 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. (Even if someone cleaned it up to only include clubs that actually have articles, it would only have 4 entries and probably wouldn't be worth keeping.) Demiurge 13:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an advertising directory. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and the scope of this list is too arbitrary and potentially unmanageable.-- danntm ^T _C 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Except that not all of the clubs on the current page ought to get their own Wikipedia entry, either. Some things in life are just plain non-notable. They might belong in Yahoo's Web directory structure, but not in an encyclopedia.) --Quuxplusone 03:49, 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 keep for failure to advance a valid reason to delete after more than one hour. Kimchi.sg 15:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick White[edit]

I've never heard of this chap beforeBoris Allen 13:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete things just ecause you have never heard of them before. Please provide a reason for deleting this article that is based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 13:50, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Murawinski[edit]

Was prodded for WP:BIO. I think the deletion of this article is not uncontroversial, but couldn't just deprod it and leave it to lie in its current unsourced state, for I figured I'd bring it here. My vote for now is Conditional Delete unless sources are located. - crz crztalk 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the google test; this guy seems like a reasonably well known sports cartoonist. I am not sure about sourcing issues here but I would be very reluctant to delete an article simply because it lacks sources unless such article could never be sourced satisfactorily or there is some reason to think the article is misleading. Allon Fambrizzi 08:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]

Comment Passing the google test in not an measure of notability. scope_creep 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources and fails to assert notability. scope_creep 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not a means to solicit for sources. That is what the {{sources}} tag is for. hateless 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for telling me off. This AfD was in lieu of outright deletion. Your comment is uncalled for. - crz crztalk 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't disagree with your nom if it were on procedural reasons, but that point seems to be obscured with your vote. If you want to make clear your nom is procedural, then make it clear. Otherwise, if sources is the problem, and sources seem to be obtainable, deletion is not the answer. hateless 04:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what Allon means, I'm not getting anything on him on Google at all. No indication that he even exists. I suppose I could be doing something wrong, but what? Anyway, in addition, the article is horrendously bad, removing the cruft would reduce it to an unverified stub. If someone wants to write a decent article on the guy, they might just a well start from scratch. Herostratus 04:03, 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) 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not much to redeem it in its current form. The writing style is poor and the article, being thin on facts, states the obvious, an example being - "He is the second of five children. He has an older sister and three younger siblings.". Go figure! LittleOldMe 17:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a couple of sources and added the fact that he was nominated for a Reuben Award. The article could still use a bit of cleanup, including the deletion of some of the personal information.--FreeKresge 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctification: What it is and Does[edit]

Original research -- talk page indicates that a professor requested his student to post his assignment here. Some of the quotes may be incorporated into article on sanctification, but most of this is Christian-specific rhetoric (e.g., phrases like "The encounter with God’s Spirit allows us to know who we are") and is thus too POV-laden to integrate. -- Merope 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful, delete the rest per nom. MER-C 13:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sanctification which seems to be canted towards the Christian POV anyway. --Richard 05:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a homework assignment. And then take the professor round the back of the outhouse and spank his ass. WMMartin 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 17:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockey[edit]

Non-notable hybrid sport. Only 41900 ghits, compare this with a real sport such as gaelic football - 513,000 ghits. Unreferenced and unwikified. Contested prod. MER-C 13:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete make that less than 10000 hits [14] most of which aren't about this dubious sport. Non-notable, possibly made up in school one day. MartinDK 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided and a major rewrite undertaken. LittleOldMe 17:58, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egregore[edit]

Cruft lacking WP:RS. Leibniz 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched the Oxford English Dictionary. Could be luftcraft. scope_creep 23:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's luftcraft? Perhaps it is Lovecraftcruft. Leibniz
Could well be, its got that connatation about it, summat out of At the mountains of madness. scope_creep 00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Sounds like a hoax/joke or OR to me... Spawn Man 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a hoax but a fairly well known concept in occultism dating back at least to the 19th century. Google yields 40,000 hits for either the spelling "egregore" or "egregore". According to the more coherent sources, the concept of egregore developed in the interpretation of the Book of Enoch. A number of historically prominent occultists have written about it, including Eliphas Levi. I encountered it myself in the works of Valentin Tomberg. -- Shunpiker 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment - I reworked the article to make better use of references and to exclude some of the more contentious material. The result is more of an outline than a proper article, so I have tagged it as a stub. In making these edits, I found the article for grigori -- which is another transliteration of the word that became egregor/egregore, and describes a distinct but related tradition. I still believe this article should be kept on its own. However, I could live with a redirect to grigori with a merge of the contents of this article. -- Shunpiker 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not paper. Though the subject is a little obscure, it is of sufficient interest to include in an online encyclopedia. Needs sources listed, though. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember who said "But it's not toilet paper either." Obscurity is not the issue, verifiability is. For starters, the very first line, stating that it is an Old English word, seems to be patently false. Leibniz 13:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too true. However, I think we have two separate questions. Is the subject encyclopedic? Yes. Does this particular article need a thorough going over? Absolutely. Hopefully, we can engage the creator in improving the artiocle instead of just scrapping it. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 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, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BOLLOCKS. The only google results for "Gaetan Delaforgem" are related to this term. Demiurge 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Keep now that someone has cleaned it up, added references and removed all the speculation. Demiurge 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:BOLLOCKS might apply if Gaetan Delaforgem was the only source of this concept. But it has already been demonstrated that it's not the case. The fact that Delaforgem has only published one Google-indexed paper has absolutely no bearing on the validity of "Egregore" as a subject -- although it does make him a less than desirable reference. There's consensus that this article needs cleanup and better references, but WP:BOLLOCKS does not apply. -- Shunpiker 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This likely is an actual term used in esotericism - at least somebody took the time to write an equally vague German-language Wikipedia article about it. But it doesn't look too widely-used or notable based on the sparse and maybe not exactly reliable sources that are provided. Sandstein 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs additional (non-internet) sources, but it is well written, informative and interesting. At worst, the article should be moved to Wiktionary. LittleOldMe 18:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no solid reason to remove this article. It is an open, free and decent exchange of information on a concept that is not invented out of nowhere but has been on for quite some time now.

The concept is also not new, similar to Tulpa in Tibetan mysticism and has been used in numerous works of fiction as well (See Tupla entry).

In fact this is a good platform for any scientific results through publications to add their results on this subject, viewing from an unbiased, open scietific mind.

Therefore this article should stay on the page and not be deleted.

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G11. Kimchi.sg 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Bears[edit]

Spam/Advertising TexasAndroid 13:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Demiurge 14:04, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Gittens, Jack Steer[edit]

Prods removed without comment. Supposed 17-year-old footballer for Scunthorpe United F.C., and another for Cardiff/Wycombe, who totally fail google search. Since anyone who ever takes the field once shows up in dozens of footballer sites, looks like hoax. Author name makes this look like vanity. Fan-1967 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author has just bought a 24-hour block for a round of blatant vandalism on other articles and user pages, so will be temporarily unable to defend these contributions. Fan-1967 14:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly hoaxes (no mention of either via Google, for example). Even if they are not, they lack sources so are unverifiable and are certainly not notable. Gwernol 14:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable (and probable hoax). Article creator has been blocked for repeated vandalism and shares name with the subject of the first article. Geoffrey Spear 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but oppose early closing as such; considering the author's block, it would be unnecessary biting. Letting this run its full course costs us little and can only make better any situation which may arise with these articles or this contributor down the road, be it DRV, CSD under G4, or discussion with the user after the block expires. BigNate37_(T) 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed. Hoax is not a speedy category, and a future need for G4 seems not improbable. Fan-1967 15:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable, lacks of sources, and no assertion of notability. Very unlikely to be real and notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Alan Severns[edit]

This is a contested speedy deletion. Appears to be a self-created biography, but author claims to be notable. A quick search of Google turns up nothing, as does a less quick search of Lexis Nexis, but it's possible that there's been work in trade publications which such searches wouldn't reveal. If this gets kept it will need major wikification for tone and structure. Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really not enough here. 90% of the article is OR unverifiable biographical trivia. Main assertion of notability seems to be writing and editing a small magazine no one's ever heard of. Unspecified appearances in a few newspapers, even if verified, wouldn't confer notability unless author can be shown to be a significant featured writer or columnist. Staff writers and stringers are not notable. Fan-1967 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, once you get through all the unsourced, unverified biographical informatinon (that should be removed if this article is kept), what is left is a claim of notability based on writing/editing a magazine that has a circulation of about 9000 per issue. I think this falls well short of the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion.--Isotope23 15:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone bothers to source this article and do a proper cleanup (if there is ever one). - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Trivial use of Wikipedia as a resume padding depot for family info, interests, etc, of subject lacking notability. Afv2006 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:AUTO. We certainly don't want it. but it may be userfied if the author wants to keep it. ;-) Ohconfucius 06:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire textdump. Danny Lilithborne 11:30, 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. Proto::type 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Brooks[edit]

Local news anchor. No indication of passing WP:BIO. Speedy tag removed. Pan Dan 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, no sign of passing WP:BIO Lurker ^oi! 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to assert his notability. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Afv2006 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anchorperson at main NBC affiliate of Hartford. Won 2 local Emmys in major market. Added a couple of refs. I'll likely add more. --Oakshade 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Amendment to comment - per Pan Dan's comments below, I would prefer a WP:RS regarding the 2 Emmys, but the rest of opinion is same. --Oakshade 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Isn't a local emmy par for the course for a local anchor? I would say so, given that I can find no outside sources that have made (a non-trivial) note of this. (See Google, also checked Lexis-Nexis; the NBC-30 profile is obviously not an outside source) Pan Dan 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - response - That he's a news-anchor for a major network affiliate in a major market is my primary point (even on the panel in the Lieberman-Lamont debate). The only NBC-30 source supported part is the 2 Emmys. As I can't find records of local Emmys in that part of the country, for now I'll let that part of your argument stand (although I personally assume good faith and have no reason to think that NBC-30 is lying). But even with no Emmys, he's still notable. --Oakshade 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re: "I have no reason to think that NBC-30 is lying" -- I agree with you, but the point of demanding outside sources is, in general, to address concerns of notability, not just verifiability. In Gerry Brooks's case, if nobody other than his employer has taken note of his getting an emmy, then his getting an emmy is not genuinely notable. Pan Dan 23:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Per strictly following WP policy, I'll agree with you on that Emmy point. --Oakshade 23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) As for being a news anchor for a major network affiliate in a major market and being on the Senate debate panel -- again, those aren't valid claims to notability unless outside sources have made a nontrivial note of them (e.g. the New York Times runs a story headlined "GERRY BROOKS, HOSTING U.S. SENATE DEBATE, MAKES A BIG SPLASH") but I certainly wouldn't expect any outside sources to make such a non-trivial note of that, and my expectation seems to be backed up by the fact that no one can find non-trivial sources on him, even at the local level. Pan Dan 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that him just being on the panel of that debate is one of the points that makes him notable. There doesn't need to be a headline story on that statement, just a confirmation citation that the statement is correct and a reliable source (in this case, the Washington Post) has provided that. --Oakshade 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        (1) Yes, the Washington Post transcript of the debate certainly provides confirmation. And I don't know why you removed the emmy material from the article -- I thought we agreed that the NBC-30 website is a reliable source. The problem with both of these sources is that they don't show that Gerry Brooks is notable -- the WP transcript because it's trivial (with respect to Brooks) and the NBC-30 site because it's not an outside source. (2) Now, you seem to be arguing that his being a news anchor for an NBC affiliate and his having been on that panel confer automatic, inherent notability regardless of whether outside sources have taken non-trivial note. You're certainly entitled to your opinion there, but I would argue against us Wikipedians arguing that anything is inherently notable. It's much easier just to use the outside-sources criterion -- that way we don't have to argue in the abstract about whether this attribute or that attribute (being an anchor for example) makes someone notable -- we rely on the publishers of outside sources to make that hard judgment for us. Pan Dan 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "Now, you seem to be arguing that his being a news anchor for an NBC affiliate and his having been on that panel confer automatic, inherent notability regardless of whether outside sources have taken non-trivial note." ...Bingo... If no outside sources establishing notability of this person exist, I'd still vote keep. I think network affiliate television anchor persons in large markets are inherently notable. That's my opinion and I never claimed otherwise. --Oakshade 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Kimchi.sg 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

Non-notable place. Too few people. SupaStarGirl 15:02, 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. This is a content dispute and a grey area as far as actual policy is concerned, and there are good arguments on both sides. Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lǐ (李) (surname)[edit]

Fork of Li (surname) with non-English title. Nothing to merge back as this was just split out, and the tone mark and Chinese character in the title means it is an unlikely search term/redirect target. Kimchi.sg 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, is there really a need for a duplicate? Definitely not, another redundant article which no one is likely going to ever search. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Li (surname). LittleOldMe 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The article is a duplication, so there's no need for it, but redirects don't hurt anything. —Cswrye 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How did we get two articles on the same surname? The thing is, there are surnames in Chinese with the same spelling but different characters and tones. Does this mean editors would prefer to have, for example, a discussion of two discrete surnames in one single article (avoiding the use of the Chinese character and tone mark in the article title)? Badagnani 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless there's any non-duplicated content. Hut 8.5 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Comment surnames are different, Chinese characters in title are necessary here, since many different surnames have same romanization, but they are absolutely not the same thing. You can't group surnames by their pronuciations, but their written form. Yao Ziyuan 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Li (surname) article does group it by character, so I'm not sure what your objection is here. The problem here is that this is a very unlikely search term and Wikipedia article titles are generally optimized for searching purposes. ColourBurst 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It doesn't work well by grouping CKV surnames by pronuciation, in this case, Wikipedia currently groups "李", "黎", "理", "里", and etc in a single article. This is a bad idea. Since these surnames are totally different, and no relations among them except its romanization. This is say Chinese surnames. But the same surname "李" (and many others) also found in Korea, Vietnam, and Singapore, and they have the same origin and written form, but different pronuciations and romanizations in different countries (unfortunately!), so don't you think it makes far better sense to group all "李"s, not "Li"s in a single article? Yao Ziyuan 23:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment My objections aren't to this. My objection is simply that this is a limitation of the system. Since use of diacritics and non-latin characters in main article titles (ie non-redirects) are strongly discouraged (because of certain limitations of the English-language keyboard and older systems which don't render Chinese characters without additional software; this matters less with redirects, but is a problem for the main article), there's no way to have an article with the title mentioned, without it being very messy. Non-latin characters are discouraged in non-signature usernames for this reason as well. ColourBurst 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment, I see. But use Chinese character in title is the most effictive way to disambiguate for surnames. In China, when people ask someone for their surnames, he/she will answers the question like: "Lǐ", and the "Lǐ" with 木 at top and 子 at bottom., so you see, this is way too long to suitable for disambiguation titles. Second, it is the page creator's business to name the title, other readers and editors can safely ignore the Chinese characters in title, and read or edit the article without any inconvenience. Yao Ziyuan 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as the English language is concerned, these are the same name. Grouping them together is actually the best way to allow non-Chinese speakers to see that they are actually different (as opposed to confusing them). I also can't see having Li (surname) being a disambiguation page when most English-speaking editors will not be able to pick the correct disambiguation and the redirect has no value as has already been mentioned. Mike Dillon 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the "best" way to allow non-Chinese speakers to see that they are actually different is to make current articles for surnames as disambiguations, I think. Yao Ziyuan 03:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Li (surname). This is the English Wikipedia, we don't sort based on the Chinese language, and many editors are uncomfortable with the use of non-English characters in article titles, period. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a "sort" thing. This is what something actually to be. 李 and 黎 are different, just like any other two surnames are different, pronuciation doesn't make too much sense when considering surnames, but the written form is the most important. Yao Ziyuan 04:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. 李 and 黎 are separate names, and both are common. If you don't like Chinese characters in the title, then use Pinyin tone marks, but the articles should be kept separate. -- ran (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. True it is that "Lǐ (李)" is an unlikely search term for English-speaking users, but so are other foreign-named article names such as Bibliothèque François Mitterrand (Paris Metro and RER). It is inappropriate to group different things in the same article simply because they have the same romanisation. An analogy is the provinces of Shǎnxī and Shānxī. These two provinces have the "same" romanisation, and it is unlikely that anyone would be typing search names with tonal marks, yet we work around it by spelling the former differently (as Shaanxi). Imo, Li (surname) should be a disambiguation page, splitting off into articles about the various different surnames. We have the technology to disambiguate, so why shouldn't we do it? --Sumple (Talk) 05:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless fork per nom. The contents are duplicated except that the Lǐ (李) (surname) article excludes the people with surname 黎. From a navigational pov, I agree with ColourBurst. An qwerty or azerty searcher will certainly be content with a dab within the page Li (surname) rather than type the name with awkward accents which are not on the keyboard. The only problem, though is the linking of articles to chinese wikipedia for the different Li's. There is only one Li article at the moment, so let's not complicate matters, and deal with the problem when it comes up. Wiki is not 维基百科 (chinese wiki). Ohconfucius 06:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand your view described above quite clearly. But I think the goal of English Wikipedia is to describe fact in English language. Here the fact is several different family names are discussing in one single article, so split these family names, have each of them their own article. Nothing wrong, right? This is what I am doing. Yao Ziyuan 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seperate We cannot have one page covering so many radically different things. I do agree that the Chinese page title is a problem though, but there is no other reasonable way to disambiguate them. (You can disambigute them by their meanings, the name's rank in Baijia Xing, etc. but none of those methods make any more sense to the casual reader....seeing that we don't even have an article on Baijia Xing) _dk 09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original article does quite a good job to describe and disambiguate the different Chinese characters with the same 'Li' sound, and also provided direct links to a number of individual biographies. I simply feel that placing a dab page like the one Yao Ziyuan did (and which I have reverted for now) is unhelpful to the English-language user who by this initial stage is forced to be able to recognise the differrent Chinese characters (or the pinyin marks) which I think is mighty unfair. Ohconfucius 02:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The Baijia Xing article is at Hundred Family Surnames. I created redirects from Baijia Xing, Baijia xing, and Baijiaxing. Mike Dillon 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I encountered this problem with creating the Yuan (surname) article. Luckily the other surnames pronounced Yuan are very minor so they could be dealt with in a footnote. In the case of Li, this cannot be done, as the surname 黎 is statiscally important enough to warrant its own section at the very least. However, I don't think that creating separate articles using Chinese characters is a solution. As has already been stated, it is an unlikely search time, and the use of non-Latin scripts is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, the title looks decidely clumsy. In the end, we have to accept that this is an English language encyclopedia. Its articles necessarily take the perspective of the English language, even when dealing with Chinese concepts. Inserting Chinese characters as a reference tool parallel to the English is one thing, but it is quite another to use Chinese characters as meaningful entities by themselves. This runs the risk of shifting this English encylopedia to a foreign language one. I think we can only try to explain and differentiate Chinese surnames within the article itself. Yeu Ninje 13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't we use tone marks here? -- ran (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

few keyboards are so equipped. But let's put that to one side for a moment. I completely understand where Yao Ziyuan, Sumple, ran and Deadkid dk are coming from. They are approaching the problem from a Chinese linguistic angle, whereas in fact we need an English linguistic solution. To occidentals, they are not radically different: it hardly matters whether a "Li" is "李", "黎", "理", "里", the starting point is still an 'L' and an 'i' on the keyboard. They are no doubt at that page to learn more about the distinctions, and perhaps the subtleties of the pronunciation, so it is convenient (indeed essential) to group them together. Furthermore, the average person searching English wikipedia is probably as incapable of recognising the different chinese characters, or correcly use the accents which make up the 4 pinyin tones, as I am incapable of deciphering arabic writing. So when trying to move this debate forward, I would suggest that the above editors considered how they would respond when faced with navigation pages based on, say, arabic script or sanskrit. Ohconfucius 02:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alphabeta is not everything. There are something in the world that alphabeta cannot describe. So we have to use images sometimes. Things pronounced the same doesn't mean things are the same. This is an encyclopedia written in English language, not an encyclopedia change what things actually to be and localized them for English speakers. Yao Ziyuan 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info It is not my idea to use Chinese characters in titles for surname disambiguations, here is some earlier discussions: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_surnames#Naming_conventions Yao Ziyuan 03:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree that alphabeticisation can still fail ; a picture can often paint a thousand words, to coin a phrase. The debate which you linked to above still does not propose any solution which is workable to the average English user of wikipedia. In fact. it pretty much mirrors the one we are having here. But really, how would you respond when faced with navigation pages based on, say, arabic script or sanskrit, bearing in mind you're in English wikipedia? Ohconfucius 03:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying best to make my solution workable to average English users. My solution: (1) Title style: Pinyin (Chinese character) (surname), pinyin is readable for English reader, Chinese character here for removal of ambiguities, (surname) tells average users what Pinyin here mean if he/she has no background knowledge of Chinese names. (2) A user do not have to know Chinese characters: The characters is in bracket only for disambiguation purpose, readers and editors can safely ignore it and reading or editing the article, use what Chinese text in bracket is page creator's business. I'm trying my best for WP:NPOV, since pinyin is PRC stuff, but the surnames might be used in several different East Asian countries. I can't find another romanization better for this situation (might be somewhat unfair to Korean speakers, but I'm trying my best). Yao Ziyuan 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose we took this debate back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese surnames Ohconfucius 03:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comment that only the page creator needs to use the title is incorrect (in other words, it cannot be safely ignored). Nominations (linking to page of the day, FAs, AfDs) requires the article title to be pasted in. The fact that the article title needs to be linked is the very reason the naming convention for non-latin characters exists in the first place. ColourBurst 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a problem. Just select the title, copy, and then paste. You don't have to aware of what the content you were copied, just select and copy it. I am doing interwiki works among many different languages of Wikipedias. I can't read them all, but I can still done the interwiki jobs, right? Yao Ziyuan 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete I don't see what the harm is in keeping two different names on the same page, simply because they have the same spelling. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English spelling. Li (surname) already has an explanation of the differences in the original Chinese. -Freekee 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have four or five surnames on one page, with each surname having the amount of content like in Yuan (surname), then you'd have a problem. _dk 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - consider this is not "Chinese surname", this is a surname of Chinese origin, it also found in Korea, Vietnam, and Singapore, with different spellings. This makes things complex. Not a simple "Li" or "李" problem. What I am doing is make these complex spellings in order, standardize them with a single naming convention. Yao Ziyuan 17:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We should not have non-Roman characters in article names that the average user cannot type.--Niohe 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but things cannot named using only Roman characters are not in Wikipedia's view according to your word? Yao Ziyuan 08:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought I had seen the last of your ethno-centric POV on CFD; evidently that is not the case. You ignore that he is only referring to article names. No one is calling for the elimination of non-English/ASCII content from Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact: completely different surnames might have exactly the same pronunciation and romanization, but on the other hand, many same surnames of China origin have found and extensively used in other East Asian countries with different pronunciations and romanizations. Chinese character to Roman is not a relation of one-to-one or one-to-more, but more-to-more. The relation is too complex to figure out what the surname actually be only by its romanizations. There is no way to organize each surname under one single article title unless we use Chinese characters in title to disambiguate (only for disambiguation purpose). I'm propose to use "Pinyin (Chinese) (surname)" form of title for surname articles, this can be read and edit (but not create) by both people who can or cannot speak Chinese, no matter if he/she has installed Chinese font. As a IT/computing expert, I see no technical problem by using Chinese characters at Wikipedia. Yao Ziyuan 08:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fact - Most people using Wikipedia are not computer scientists.--Niohe 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yao Ziyuan: Yes, English Wikipedia is "Latin-centric" just as much as 維基百科 is "Hanzi-centric". English will be written in Latin letters for the foreseeable future and Wikipedia is not the place to change English usage or create new words. Before you try to change the way Wikipedia works, perhaps you should sit down and read WP:NOT or zh:WP:不 if that makes more sense.--Niohe 14:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody's disputing that fact that these names need to be disambiguated from each other, but the fact remains that they can either be disambiguated on the same page, or on separate pages. That is what we're arguing about - not whether the names need to be disambiguated. Either way it will require the use of the Chinese characters. -Freekee 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to refrain from calling yourself an "expert"; it sounds pretty pompous. Mike Dillon 17:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be polite, please. Don't you also write "This user is an expert SQL programmer." on your own user page? Yao Ziyuan 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's in the userbox and I didn't write it. That box is on my page to let people know that I am available to help with high-level SQL-related issues in the context of Wikipedia. I'm not going around calling myself an "expert" in conversations and I would not do so. I would probably say "IT professional" or "software engineer". Mike Dillon 19:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the name can be disambiguated on some other way, that would be fine, but it doesn't seem to be a deletion issue. (And the separate pages for all the different "Li" names are probably needed, as I doubt we cover anywhere close to all notable people with these names yet.) Uppland 12:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be most interested if you could offer some suggestions of how to do so without introducing chinese characters into titles of articles and categories. Ohconfucius 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. Merging this with "Li" not only brings in those other Lis (which I could live with) but loses those 李 who are spelled differently in English (Lee, Lý, Lii, Plum, etc.). I understand the problem, but the real solution would be to merge this and all similar articles with Chinese surnames. That would be useful. But until that can be done, Lǐ (李) (surname) serves a purpose that Li (surname) does not.

OinkOink 22:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The need for a split is clear. We've long since reached a consensus that the common East Asian surnames are notable topics in themselves; different surnames are *different* notable topics and have to be dealt with on different pages. It is unfortunate that there is no alternative means of disambiguation - or at least none has been proposed -- but in any case that would be an argument for renaming, not deletion nor even merging. I'm tempted to suggest Li (plum tree) (surname), but don't think it would fly. :-) -- Visviva 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Let those who are knowledgeable decide consistently--while the question is still live, its absurd to delete. It should only be deleted if the correct style is decided by consensus, and then someone insists on a different way. DGG 05:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I can see the fundamental difference between the "Keep" camp and the "Merge" camp: If you think of this as "an article about the surname 'Li' in English", then the "different" Lis should be in the same article. But, if you think of this as "an article or articles about the various East Asian surnames, which can be written as "Li" in English, then they should be kept separate. Obviously, coming from a Chinese cultural background I see things from the latter p.o.v., whereas I would guess that editors from a non-East Asian background would see things from the former p.o.v. So I guess the question we are really asking is, what are we trying to write an article on: the "English" word (surname) Li? or the underlying Asian names that "Li" represents? If the former, merge. If the latter, separate. --Sumple (Talk) 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we write the both, this article should be also keep. Yao Ziyuan 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The thing that have puzzled me most in this discussion is the fact that people who wish to keep the article, take the Chinese language as the norm and then tries to fix whatever is "lacking" in the English language. The fundamental problem is that no two languages correspond one to one, and we should not try to impose the logic of one language on another. I want to stress that this is a two way street: my experience is that editors on other language versions of Wikipedia (such as Chinese) are sensitive to impositions of foreign language logic on their language - and we should be equally sensitive here at English Wikipedia. I am not saying that languages don't change and that Wikipedia should not reflect that. But this is not the place to reinvent language and for want of a better norm we should stick to the norm "in Rome do as Romans" do, or 入乡随俗 as we say in Chinese.

The whole problem seems to have started when one of the participants in this debate decided that there should be a page in Englsih Wikipedia, which corresponds exactly to zh:李姓. However, such a one-to-one correspondence is unrealistic and the closest guide to this problem can be found on Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Purpose, where it is stated that we should link to corresponding pages for want of better matches.

In conclusion, as long as most users of English Wikipedia are not bilingual in Chinese and English, I do not see what purpose separate pages satisfy.--Niohe 15:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Li (surname meaning "son born beneath a plum tree") - there is no way for an English speaker to use that title with the chinese character in it in ANY useful way - I can't type it - I can't read it - I can't tell my friend over the phone how to get to it - I can't search for it (because I can't type the chinese character and 'Li' by itself is too short)...and I can't link to it (because I can't type it). SteveBaker 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be redundant name, but I agree on renaming it. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This is not always work. Because for many surnames, since a character usually has many meanings, and it is hard to say which meaning the surname origin. And for general uses, surnames are about no additional meanings with them. They only mean surnames. So we are here talking about about the character itself. Yao Ziyuan 02:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I said it before, and I'm saying it again: we cannot take Chinese characters as the starting point when we create entries in English Wikipedia. Please read my comment above, Yao Ziyuan.--Niohe 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know you have said before. You always says 維基百科 this 維基百科 that, but this is English Wikipedia, this is not 維基百科, and personal, I don't contribute at 維基百科. Maybe you are familiar with 維基百科, but none of people here. Please don't talk about 維基百科 here again, which is already communism. Yao Ziyuan 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for your enlightening contribution.--Niohe 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yao Ziyuan, I found your statement extremly ignorant and offensive. The Chinese Wikipedia is communist? How? Because it displays Simplified Chinese? sigh. Many of the people here actually do contribute to Chinese Wiki, and your wide accusation does not help you at all.

The opposing point is clear: on a computer with no East Asian character encoding, all characters simply displays "[]", do you realize that?. The only way we can solve this is by renaming the article. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. It was not me ignorant and offensive. You didn't understand me. Yes, I certainly realized they would be displayed as "[]", but even they displayed as [], copy-and-paste and be still done correctly. Yao Ziyuan 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, who is that was ignorant and offensive, then? I am starting to wonder whether you actually understand what has been said in the debate. By making the inclusion of Chinese characters look like a purely technical question, it is clear that you are not paying any attention to what other editors have said in the matter. As regards the use of Chinese characters, there are relevant Wiki-policies in place that we need to respect. Furthermore, if you disagree with our interpretation of these rules, please quote Wikipolicies in support of your argument. Thus far, you haven't even mentioned any of these policies. Are you listening at all? This is getting very repetitive and I fear that people will stop listening to you if you keep dodging the issue.--Niohe 07:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't off-topic. It was not me, and I'm not interested in who was. please do not make personal attacks here, we only talk about the problem itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yao Ziyuan (talk • contribs)

Comment - It doesn't matter that the chinese character has many meanings - we only care about the meaning that applies in this particular case. This is no different from someone with an English name that can be pronounced in many ways and have different meanings. Suppose someone was called 'Tom Bow' - Bow can be something that shoots an arrow or the front part of a ship - and it can be pronounced in two different ways and spelled 'Bough' and sound the same. We don't care because it's just a name. The fact that the same kinds of ambiguity exists in chinese isn't a reason to start making things even more confusing for English readers. Pick whichever meaning applies and put it in brackets after the name if disambiguation is necessary - explaining the differences in detail inside the article. Putting a symbol that it utterly incomprehensible to almost all of our readers quite simply doesn't help in any way - in fact it makes matters worse because we can't read it aloud OR type it. The precedent this would set for other articles would be unbearable. If we allow this, then shouldn't the article on Aristotle be called Ἀριστοτέλης instead because 'Aristotle' is only an approximate spelling based on the latin alphabet? SteveBaker 05:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a fair comparison at all. The various "Li" surnames are actually written differently *and* pronounced differently in Chinese. When properly transliterated, whether via Pinyin or W-G, many of them look different. All they have in common is that, when transliterated in English, they are commonly written the same way.

It would be analogous to, say, there being two towns, one called Θήβα and the other called niwt, but which are both called "Thebes" in English. Yet, we keep them on different pages because they are different things.

The distinguishing feature of the present debate from the Thebes situation is that we have no effective way to technically disambiguate the various surnames that correspond to "Li".

And, as I have said before, IMO the fundamental question is whether we are having an article about the English transliteration "Li" per se, or the underlying Asian surnames which are represented by it. Connotations and denotations. Dum-dee-dum-dee-dum. --Sumple (Talk) 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So call the article Li (surname pronounced as XXX) where 'XXX' is whatever most accurately approximates the correct pronunciation using the English/Latin character set. There must be some means to disambiguate these articles without resorting to a useless and incomprehensible (to most of our readers) symbol. I simply do not believe that you couldn't (with a little imagination and subject matter expertise) come up with some means to state the differences between these surnames without resorting to a chinese character. Remember, I'm only talking about the title of the article. I have no problem whatever with appropriate use of the chinese character in the body of the article or in the body of the disambiguation page for 'Li'. SteveBaker 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what Aqu01rius is proposing below: --Sumple (Talk) 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem which underlies our discussion is the structure of the language. Chinese is words are all monosyllabic with 4 tones (mandarin only), and there may be a number of homonyms for each tone. I had proposed the Li 1/2/3/4 elsewhere as a partial solution to the issue, as chinese scholars are familiar with the notation which represents the tones in mandarin. However, the simple fact is that it cannot be suitably disambiguated without either chinese characters or the use of extremely long descriptions like "Li" with 'mu' at top and 'zi' at bottom, in which case I vote for the latter. Ohconfucius 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I guess if we keep all the Lis in one article, it would eventually become way too long. I would recommend that we rename them all according to their sound. Those special characters are not good to be included in the article title, so we can adjust them to be something like these:

Lī -> Li (1) - Probably won't need it as there is no matching Chinese lastname.

Lí -> Li (2) - Which is most likely for 黎 only.

Lǐ -> Li (3) - Focus on 李, but address 理 or 里 also if necessary.

Lì -> Li (4) - 立?

Then change the Li page into a disambiguation page. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with having Lī, Lí, Lǐ, Lì, since they are Latin characters and anyway, lots of French articles use accented letters in their names. --Sumple (Talk) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate - Chinese character purely for disambiguation purposes, and the subject of the page is, in a sense, the character itself. Schrödinger's cat 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you can see above, many editors a wary of using Chinese characters or other non-Roman characters in page names. Please advice.--Niohe 04:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally as advised in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) ("Also, a non-Latin-alphabet redirect could be created to link to the actual Latin-alphabet-titled article."), we could keep this page as a redirect to Li (surname) and have 李 as its own section in the latter article; however no thanks to a Mediawiki bug it is impossible to redirect to specific sections. Kimchi.sg 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Li (surname) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would be the best solution in my opinion (with a merge of content of course). That said, if this is kept outright I would say the idea being floated here to dab Li (surname) to several subpages is a bad one and should not be done. Leave it as a link it at the end of the article but leave the Li (surname) content intact as a good concise overview.--Isotope23 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and turn Li (surname) a disambiguation. — Insta ntnood 18:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's remind ourselves that WP:NAME is wiki policy. It seems pretty unambiguous that the article should be deleted as being non-compliant with same: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Ohconfucius 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. The use of Chinese character is the most straight way to solve this problem, rather than use unreasonable long "mu at top and zi at bottom". Here is the problem 李, it has simple structure, so what if we next write article about 龍? I suggest to use a uniform way to disambiguate all surnames. And that it is Yao Ziyuan 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You're making a huge leap here. Exactly the spirit of what rule would allow us to ignore Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)?--Niohe 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to Yao Ziyuan: simple answer : Long (dragon) ;-) Don't try and force us to use chinese characters. The simplest way is not going to be uniform because Chinese is so fundamentally different. Ohconfucius 10:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this article is kept, it should be moved to Li (李) since the Chinese character is already sufficient disambiguation. Kimchi.sg 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is Jimbo's take, straight from his talk page:
First, a rant, and then some limited support for your proposal. :)

I am deeply, deeply opposed to the use of ALL non-English characters in the titles of articles in English Wikipedia in most cases. This is already a horrible problem in such cases as Stanisław Lem. Look closely at that... it contains the character "ł", which is not an English character. Therefore, it is wrong as a title for an article in the English Wikipedia. Because of the nature of English as a mongrel language with no official academy or spelling rules, there can be rare exceptions where some special non-English characters are extremely well known as part of a proper name. I accept this. So be it. But this is not license to play it deuces-wild and dispense with the entire English spelling system.

The correct name of Munich, in English, is Munich. This despite the fact that it could be written as the Germans write it: München, or perhaps even Anglicized as Muenchen. The correct English name for the capital of Japan is Tokyo. It would be deeply wrong to write that "The capital of 日本 is 東京." It would be also wrong to say "The capital of Nippon is Tōkyō... or any other variant. In English the name is "Tokyo".

Now, having given that rant, I find that I must take what might seem to some a contradictory position. In the case you are considering... purely for disambiguation purposes, the subject of the page is, in a sense, the character itself. I find this to be an interesting proposal, and I promise not to blow a gasket about it. It is not for me to decide of course.

(And notice that although I think the community has made a deeply wrong decision in the case of Stanisław Lem, I keep mostly quiet about that, too.)

--Jimbo Wales 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

– Ch acor 10:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment from Jimbo's talk page - Jimbo, I am one of the participants in the debate whether to use Chinese characters in page names and I would like to thank you for your input. However, I think it is wrong to draw a parallel between the use of diacritics in Latin-based names and Chinese characters.

First, it is hard to draw the line where diacritics should be considered non-English or not. Not long ago, it was considered proper English to write: coöperation, reënactment, rôle and archæology, etc.

Furthermore, in case diacritics are used, it is very easy to create disambiguation pages that will lead the user to the "correct" page. Type Stanisław Lem or Stanislaw Lem and you get directed to the same page.

However, when it comes to the use of Chinese characters in page names, we are potentially raising a barrier to many users, at least as long as we can assume the majority of English Wikipedia's cannot type Chinese. If we set a precent for this, there is nothing that prevents us from creating pages with Arabic, Hindi, Hebrew, Cyrillic texts, which may make parts of Wikipedia inaccessible for many users.

Just my two cents.

--Niohe 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Merge other articles into this one. I just now searched for 李, and now I find here that my search is seen as an "unlikely" one for English speakers. I would note that if popularity of search terms is a determinant of inclusion within this reference site, then a great many more of these 1.5 million English articles are also unlikely to be searched, and need to be deleted along with this one. I was hoping to search for people across the East-Asian spectrum who shared the same surname as the first Korean president, Rhee Syngman. With due deference to Jimbo Wales' xenocentrist and somewhat insulting view that "all foreign place names must be rendered in English" (as if the native languages simply did not exist at all, or were all on their way to extinction, or at any rate were unlearnable to us daft, monolingual English-speakers), it feels kind of tedious for me to complete my search here without resorting to a direct search of the 李 character. I do see some merit in restricting foreign language characters in titles, but I also see that total anglicization of every other language puts up a serious barrier between users like me, who actually set foot outside of their own country, and languages that really exist and are used in this world. This is an English encyclopedia, yes, but encyclopedic topics do not only exist within English-speaking countries, and I would prefer to have the privilege of being able to connect with ideas in other languages without muting them with romanization. Frankly, it makes me feel like an idiot to not be able to search for 李, and it makes me want to turn to other sources. Now, there is certainly a lot of duplication with this surname, but this 李 article here is the most complete so far, at least for my present search, including lists of both Korean and Chinese prominent bearers of the name. The other articles should be merged into this, preceded by a disambiguation page connecting me with the article, Lee (Korean name). It might be best to simply put the 李 title on that disambiguation page. Retaining the diacritic is immaterial... I wouldn't even see the need to put any romanization on a 李 disambiguation page. Bravo-Alpha 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may have eluded you that there are other language versions of Wikipedia and that many articles are interlinked. That is the beauty of Wikipedia as a whole. However, it seems that rather than improving Wikipedia in their native languages, many Wikipedians prefer to write articles in English Wikipedia. No problem in and by itseld, but the end result is that the linguistic hegemony of English is perpetuated by many people who are opposed to it. I use Chinese Wikipedia on a daily basis, and occasionally contribute to it, but I'm often struck by the fact that it is so small - it turned 100 000 articles only recently! --Niohe 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it really boils down to what we rename the page since it is clearly unfeasible to have a Chinese character in the page title. After some thinking, I propose using Hundred Family Surnames to disambiguate the names to achieve a standardized and one-to-one translation of surnames. For example, 李 would be Li (4th surname in Hundred Family Surnames). This is better than the "take the meaning" approach since meaning don't really apply in the case of surnames, and Li (surname that means plum tree) or Li (surname that means to stand) looks pretty ridiculous. _dk 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not list by frequency, like Li (nth most popular Chinese surname)? Just an idea...--Niohe 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One should not rule out the possibility that the frequency will change, IMHO. Then we'll have to move the page every so often. _dk 15:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Hundred Family Surnames is problematic though, because many surnames it lists are not common any more, and it doesn't list many surnames which are common these days. I'm working on a wikified version of the text at User:Sumple/Surnames. Check it out, especially all the redlinks. --Sumple (Talk) 20:30, 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. Agent 86 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanseen Abdelnaby[edit]

Article has been waiting six months for sources and verifications. Totally fails google search. After article was prodded, author added claim of sources being the history channel and the person's son. Prod was removed without comment. No Reliable Sources found, so Unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything I can find on Google looks like mirrors of this article, even when not credited as such. Fan-1967 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. I have no way of telling whether the cited references are books, magazine articles, or something else. "title + author(?)" alone is not an acceptable format for citing sources. Kimchi.sg 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of them are books. One pre-dates the existence of ISBNs. Uncle G 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that we know for sure he is mentioned in multiple books. Kimchi.sg 00:23, 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 Speedily deleted as a copyvio of http://www.mdgridiron.umd.edu/aboutus/index.html. (aeropagitica) 18:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Gridiron Network[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 15:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantially all of the page was copied from [15]. --Metropolitan90 16:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Metropolitan90. This sounds like a clear-cut copyvio to me. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 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 it isn't being contested now. Yomangani ^talk 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary leclair[edit]

Contested PROD. PROD tag removed with no explanation by origanl editor who appears to be the subject of the article. The article is a conflict of interest. No sources are provided in the article, and googling for the name provides no information that can be used to satisify verifiability. Furthermore, the subject does not appear to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO, in particular, as an athlete. Whpq 16:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be proved. LittleOldMe 18:14, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Library 2.0[edit]

Yet Another Web Neologism. From the article: The term "Library 2.0" was coined by Michael Casey on his blog. Says it all, really. A neologism coined by a blogger and used by bloggers, not notable Lurker ^oi! 16:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm unfamilar with this topic, but looking at the extensive references the term "Library 2.0" appears in the title of articles in both Library Journal and School Library Journal (among the other web or blog references) and appears to be a known academic concept, not a neoligism. I'd say this should be kept unless proof of a lack of notability could be shown, or other proof that this is some sort of odd fringe concept. Notability isn't based on where a term originates, but where it ends up. -Markeer 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the term is used only in Library-related publications, and on the web. Lurker ^oi! 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean only the experts on libraries use the term? Then it must be useless, of course. – FYI, library science is an established field of research. Rl 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, "the term is used only in Library-related publications, and on the web" as an argument for deleting, er, an article on the use of online systems by libraries... is, um, conceptually flawed. I can't stand all these Foobar 2.0 names, but the concept is out there and we're saddled with the phrase. Shimgray | talk | 00:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOR White papers and theses are original research. LittleOldMe 18:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be original research. That doesn't mean they can't cite original research - on the contrary, that is what we are supposed to do! Uppland 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I never liked "Web 2.0" and "Library 2.0" is even worse. However, the term has quite a bit of traction in publications already, and I won't support the deletion of an article just because I find its name silly, the concept fuzzy, or its origin too bloggy. We should have a decent article about this. Rl 18:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a well-referenced article demonstrating that the term is in use among library professionals. If there are any actual problems with the article, the nominator has not explained what they are. Uppland 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire 2.0 fad as non-notable neologism riding on the coattails of Web 2.0. adding ~ism on the end of each noun or person's name is bad enough. Nuke the lot. Ohconfucius 07:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This entry should be kept as it has garnered so much attention, not only in the library community. Students are writing papers on it, library schools are dedicating full semester classes to it, entire conferences are built around it, and the theories are well grounded. It's very real, the subject of much discussion, and should stay in Wikipedia. Steven M. Cohen - 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This entry should be kept! The term has been used for over a year in the library community. It has been morphing into a description of new ways to think in the library community - different ways of putting the customer first, new ways of serving a library's community, and new ways to even think about librarians and training. Also - if this term is removed, I'd say that Office 2.0, another wikipedia entry, should be removed too - since they're both offshoots of the term web 2.0. David Lee King(UTC)
Keep While "Library 2.0" began as a bloggy term, its recent popularity in the field of Library Science has helped clarify its meaning and now has an academic "life of its own." This is an incredibly useful concept for those trying to communicate the changes in library technology. Is the name silly? Sure, but so is the Klingon language. Is the concept fuzzy? A little, but Wittgenstein made part of his career clarifying concepts such as "family resemblance" and this is no different. It's origin may be bloggy, but how is this different from the origin of many words from other technologies? It's not just a bloggy term anymore. I don't think the "origin police" should go after concepts solely because of a less-than-high-falutin origin.
Keep - After a year of discourse via the Biblioblogosphere, the term has found its way into library-related professisonal journals http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html, into library school courses and workshops/symposia/conferences. Also, Casey & Savistinuk's book "Library 2.0" will be published in early 2007 by Information Today, thus making the wikipedia entry a useful resource for readers looking to find out more and trace the term's history.*
Keep I find it bizarre that "Library 2.0" is up for deletion, the wikipedia's criteria of 'reliable sources' seems to be established. Surely discussions on the merit of the concept should be within the article not cause the deletion of the article!(Surely there is no need to address Lurker's comments on "only in Library-related publications" ...)*
KEEP - If professional librarians are discussing and addressing this in their professional literature (and they definitely are!) then why would wikipedia feel it needs to be deleted. Are not librarians the best ones to decide what is worth discussing wrt library terms?24.36.176.71 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why would "Library 2.0" be deleted if "Office 2.0" or even "Web 2.0" aren't? Isn't "Web 2.0" just as much of a neologism as "Library 2.0"? And why would a neologism be deleted anyway, especially if it's being used professionally with quite a bit of frequency? Joshua M. Neff
Keep - I hate the term. But the very fact that there is a debate around the issue means that that debate should be vocalized. The article should spell out completely the criticisms of the term and let the reader decide Schabot 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wrote probably the most widely-read discussion of the term (and the thing), cited in the links, and I may be identified (wrongly) as a leading opponent. While I may not be enthusiastic about the term as it's sometimes used, it's absolutely prominent, not only on blogs but within librarianship/library science in general. If this isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, there must be at least a quarter-million better candidates for deletion. (Walt Crawford)Waltc 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has been cited and described in professional print media [16], [17] [18] which meets the standards of notability for a neologism. Jessamyn (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

other commenters, please sign your posts with four tildes which will add your username and time/datestamp to your contributions. ~~~~ Jessamyn (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. While it could be seen as 'original research', it should be seen as an attempt to evolve existing libraries. Thus, it is NOT new but a use of new technology in the same context. Given that context, the Wikipedia falls into the same category - an 'unproven' technology which is based on the evolution of pre-existing technologies. By this logic, those who are calling for this article to be deleted might just want to save us all a lot of trouble and flag the Wikipedia itself for deletion. --TaranRampersad 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I support the other arguments that have been made to keep this entry. Information professionals are currently discussing how Web 2.0 will apply specifically to libraries, for example: how to add tagging to catalogues. We use the term Library 2.0 to apply to Web 2.0 concepts that apply specifically to library issues. Many of our colleagues who are thus far unfamiliar with the term may be referring to Wikipedia to find out what it means. Connie Crosby 17:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just wrote my Master's Paper on this topic and would like to see the article remain a part of Wikipedia. --Michael Habib 19:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The topic, although named poorly, is an important current trend among libraries around the world. -Annonymous
Keep - This topic is in big discussions, in blogs, journals and in libraries themselves, even here in Australia. It is important to libraries and library staff that information like that provided by Wikipedia, continues to be freely and easily available.
Keep -814,000 hits from a search of Google, including many of the significant print and online publications in the information sciences? Not everyone agrees with it, for sure, but the term is acting as a valuable focus in thinking about the ways in which library services evolve. -Paul Miller 24 November 2006
Keep - Although the term Library 2.0 may not be ideal, what is behind it is an important movement. Sarah Houghton has defined L2 as "…making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs…The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought." Because of its importance to the library community, I believe that this entry on Library 2.0 (L2) should remain in Wikipedia. - Jill Hurst-Wahl, Nov. 24, 2006.
Keep - Here are 7 published articles, 4 of them in peer-reviewed Library Studies journals, that have the term in their titles:
- Albanese, Andrew R. 2004. Campus library 2.0. Library Journal 129, no. 7 (15 Apr) : 30-33. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Casey, Michael E., Laura C. Savastinuk. 2006. Library 2.0. Library Journal, vol.131, no.14, pp.40-42 : Se 2006. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Chad, Ken. 2005. Library 2.0. Public Library Journal 20, no. 4 (winter) : 11-12. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Chowdhury, Gobinda, Alan Poulter, and David McMenemy. 2006. Public Library 2.0: Towards a new mission for public libraries as a "network of community knowledge". Online Information Review, vol.30, no.4, pp.454-460 30, no. 4: 454-460. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Harris, Christopher. 2006. School library 2.0. School Library Journal, pp.50-53 (May) : 50-53. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Miller, Paul. 2006. Coming together around Library 2.0. A focus for discussion and a call to arms. D-Lib Magazine, vol.12, no.4 12, no. 4 (April) Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts.
- Notess, Greg R. 2006. The terrible twos: Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and more. Online, vol.30, no.3, pp.40-42 30, no. 3 (June) : 40-42. Database on-line. Available from CSA, LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts. - Michael Lines129.128.108.46 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations above provide evidence the term is well established and evident in professional library science literature. Reynolds Erica 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per user Schabot's argument, and the fact that the term is appearing in professional literature, conference proceedings and job vacancies within the library profession. Simon Chamberlain 203.97.110.163 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is also a discussion in German about "Library 2.0" http://log.netbib.de/tag/bibliothek20 --Historiograf 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term defines a new way of viewing libraries. It might not make much sense to the average user, but for library staff it helpfull in understanding libraries today.
Comment Hmm, that's a lot of entries by anonymous and unreigistered users. Lurker ^oi! 11:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep An Argument for keeping this article: there are many people who tag their bookmarks with library2.0 at del.icio.us Textundblog 13:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The comments are by your users, many of them professional librarians. If a topic that is discussed in papers, journals, books, and at conferences is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry then what is? Base your decision upon the evidence presented. Michael Casey 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NEO, citations exist, tons of hits, there is nothing substantive to proposed reason for deletion beyond personal opinion. The article is not original research.--Buridan 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would most certainly say keep this. Though it is a relatively new term, and who knows if it will indeed stick around for the long term, it does seem that many don't yet know exactly what it means and this is a good place for such information to be found and explained. Whyfor 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Whyfor[reply]
Keep - All terms are neologisms when they're established; this term has grown beyond its youth. For the reasons above, I recommend this be a "keep." I've presented internationally on Library 2.0 (to special librarians in South Africa) and they invited me specifically to explain and elaborate concepts that had already well permeated our culture. Kgschneider 15:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that some users are unregistered doesn't detract from their evidence. The fact is that the concept is widely discussed in a profession. The original reason, that it's used by bloggers, has been proved false.
Keep - Notable and popular term. --John Hubbard 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Library 2.0 can be found or has been used in professional literature, conference programs, classes in graduate school, Masters or PhD papers, etc. It involves a evolution the libraries are all facing and will greatly change library services in the future.Bcgray 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems pretty irrelevant to me whether people like the use of the "2.0" suffix or whether its use is just a fad. The fact is that the term is clearly in use right now, its use is causing debate, and that debate will leave a legacy irrespective of whether the term remains in current usage or not. It therefore deserves an entry. Andypowe11 07:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Although the suitability of the "2.0" suffix for Library is just as debatable as the plethora of other 2.0s out there, its impact on the world wide community that are the custodians of the worlds information has moved well beyond its use as a label. Library 2.0 has become the central theme around which a debate/learning exercise, about the way Librarians and Librarianship need to evolve to meet the challenges and opportunities provided by the evolution of web/Internet technologies over recent years, has formed. There are many Librarians whishing to understand more about Library 2.0 – this page is an ideal starting point and should be retained. Richard.wallis 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Neologism or not, the mere fact that this term is used in library literature, as well as lectures, talks, and at conferences means that it has entered the vocabulary of the field. For that reason alone, it needs to be documented to explain to future generations what the term means. kosboot 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that once there are conferences out there that are built around the term (It's time for a Library 2.0 conference and Library 2.0 flickr group) a Wikipedia article to explain the term is beyond useful! Rhastings 16:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please keep this term. It doesn't matter if it originated as a neologism or not. It is extremely useful.Bill Drew 18:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important term that is generating a lot of discussion. dosogwanian 11:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep with reservations. The Wikipedia policy on neologisms reads
Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.
Since the 2.0s were all born as manifestos, people write about the term before they ever use the term. Still, it's everywhere in the literature... --Otterfan 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-issue, really. It's pretty clear that some people grate at the 2.0 thing. Seem to feel it's vacuous bandwagon jargon. Some justification for this, I suppose. As others point out there is a settling in period for new words/terminology. However, any amount of reading in the area of Library Information Science/Technology will confirm this to be a useful term.--Charles Bolding 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This debate has been referred to in at least a couple of library blogs see [19] so I have added the not a vote template. I think that we should welcome professional librarians and people with a library science background. Otterfan's point about the need for reliable sources is a pertinent one and I note that there are references cited at the bottom. A Google Scholar comes up with citations as well as false positives see [20]. Capitalistroadster 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - It even has a well populated category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Library_2.0 - Bevo 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' - Agreeing here with many of the above arguments to keep; although the term causes my teeth to grind, it is all over the relevant literature and a recurring topic at conferences and mini-conferences alike. This article provides valuable access points for those (such as MLS students or trustees) wishing to understand current library technical jargon. Granted it is a neologism, but it is also a key term for understanding the current debate about technological integration and innovations in the field of library and information sciences and, indeed, within libraries themselves. Many of the articles cited above by the contributors to this discussion will confirm. Disturbingly, I heard someone throw out the term "Library 3.0" the other day, so I'm sure we will eventually argue about deleting that future article as well! :P trireme 04:36, 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 Deleted, part of an extensive spamming campaign by General Growth Propeties, Inc. I have deleted about twenty so far and there are more to do yet. All are the work of a single purpose account who has not responded to a single one of the many Talk messages left him regarding his spamming campaign; the account is now blocked. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knollwood Mall[edit]

Another shopping mall article. No notability at all, its just a bloody shopping centre. No assertion of any features which would make this worthy of an encyclopaedia article Lurker ^oi! 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence about this one. Would you care to expand this nomination to include everything in Category:Shopping malls? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at the moment, as it will take time to go through them all and see if any come close to fulfilling notability criteria. All I have seen so far would qualify for deletion or merging per WP:Local, but I don't have time to check every single article about shopping malls in wikipedia Lurker ^oi! 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please treat each subject on its own merits, and apply the criteria in WP:CORP. Uncle G 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very few shopping mall articles would pass WP:CORP as far as I can see, but some may warrant inclusion in articles about places under WP:Local. Lurker ^oi! 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You aren't applying WP:CORP properly. To determine that something fails to satisfy WP:CORP requires doing research, to look for the existence of multiple non-trivial published works on the subject at hand. Unless you have researched every shopping mall in the world, you cannot support the statement that you have just made. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the article doesn't already contain information that satisfies WP:CORP, I don't think it's up to editors to do research to look for it. Then nothing would ever get done, and Wikipedia would be flooded with articles about non-entities. (Oh, wait. It already is.) It's not about whether the subject of any given article is notable, it's about whether the article asserts this notability and has the verifiability to back it up. wikipediatrix 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong. Assertions of notability only apply to speedy deletion. This is AFD. One of the very reasons for having AFD discussions is for multiple editors to research and double check the verifiability and the notability of articles. If an editor isn't doing the research, xe is not actually positively contributing to AFD. Everyone here should be doing the research. The idea that "nothing would get done" if all editors are actively doing the research and citing and evaluating what they all find is obviously false. Indeed, on the contrary quite a lot would get done. Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not of any encyclopedic interest. I would not consider a mall unless it was newsworthy on at least a statewide scale. It could have a mention, or even a paragraph, in an article covering the region, but it does not warrant an entire article. LittleOldMe 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Restricting the published works to statewide works is arbitrary, wrong, and not what WP:CORP says. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Applying WP:CORP and researching the actual subject of the article at hand, instead of working from a basis of erroneous generalizations about all shopping malls (Notability is not a blanket.), turns up this article in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, this article by Karen M. Kroll, this article by Matthew Cody, and this article by the St. Louis Park Historical Society (which contains lots of useful ancillary content for an encyclopaedia article, including, for starters, the mall's original name). The Minnesota Historical Society even has an interesting picture. It appears that the primary WP:CORP criterion is satisfied. There's plenty of content in those sources that isn't yet in the article, in part because the article has been badly written, using only corporate autobiographies as its sources. But that's a simple matter of cleanup and expansion using the abovementioned sources. Keep. Uncle G 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citations need to be in the article in addition to here. Edison 19:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they don't. It's much the best if they are, since it improves the article and prevents this question from arising again, but it isn't a requirement for keeping the article. Feel free to experience the joy of collaborative editing by copying and pasting the citations into the article yourself. ☺ Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. An article in a local business paper with the title "Knollwood Mall expands T.J. Maxx, adds new fitness center" is hardly an example of newsworthiness. The others include a website devoted to defunct malls, a local history website and an advertorial-style article from the "International Council of Shopping Centres". Oh, and a nice picture. Lurker ^oi! 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Newsworthiness" is not the criterion. That's already been judged by the journalist that wrote the article. And that you apparently haven't read beyond the title rather undermines any criticism that you may have. The criterion is whether the article is non-trivial (which at 2 pages and 21 paragraphs it certainly seems to be) and sourced independently of the subject (which, given that its author is Andrew Tellijohn, a Journal reporter, it also certainly seems to be). As I said, you aren't applying WP:CORP properly.
  And yes, it's an article by a local historical society. As such, it is a good source for an encyclopaedia article. History is well within the remit of Wikipedia. Uncle G 19:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. --Moreau36 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm tempted to say weakest of keeps per Uncle G but the article could almost be speedily deleted. The creator Dvac (talk · contribs) has been creating countless articles about non-notable malls despite repeated warnings that these articles were being speedy deleted, proded, nominated for deletion. Most, if not all of these articles are written in a promotional tone, do not cite any third-party references, etc. The problem is that it is not Uncle G's job to do the research for careless editors: if an article is created as a poor, unreferenced, promotional stub, it should be deleted, period. If the topic has some value (as Uncle G's research seems to indicate to a certain extent) someone will re-create it in acceptable form down the road. I know we're not supposed to take actions to prove a point but in this case, I think deleting would be good for the integrity of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 17:37, 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 17:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Pharmacy[edit]

This article reads like a press release, is entirely unsourced, and unlinked. Wikipedia is not a hosting service provider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcnet (talk • contribs) 05:55, 22 November 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs development, but seems to meet notability, even though PPNG is a small country.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree entirely. How has notability been established? LittleOldMe 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing of encyclopedic value. LittleOldMe 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original content of the article, written in the first person, was the same advertisement as one can find self-submitted to other web sites, such as here, for example. Although it has since been pared down, the article still requires a complete rewrite from scratch, citing sources. However, there don't appear to be the sources available. The article itself doesn't cite any. Looking for non-trivial published works from sources independent of the company and its founders/officers turns up exactly 1 article: this. Other articles, such as this, are about other things (in this case, a school football league), and only address the company tangentially. That's not enough to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Delete. Uncle G 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dreadful PR exercise. WMMartin 18:01, 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 merge and redirect per Uncle Ed's kind offer. Mackensen (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food insecurity[edit]

soapbox article, little or no relevant content --172.147.119.245 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles begin as stubs like this. Not sure what it is "not relevant" to. Should it be merged into one of the poverty articles, as a section? Let's try Poverty threshold. --Uncle Ed 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I'm not sure if this topic is significant enough to have its own article. However, the article is so new, it makes little sense to throw it away immediately. A merge with a bigger article might make sense--with a possible redirect on this term. Also, why exactly is this a case of soapboxing? Dall ben 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 10th result on a Google Web search for the phrase "food insecurity" comes up with the article that Wikipedia has already had on this subject for 3 years and 6 months, now. It covers the same ground and has the additional benefit over this article of not being entirely U.S.-centric in its content. Redirect to food security. Uncle G 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like Uncle G says. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the new official term used by the U.S. government for what used to be called "hunger." No kidding. Edison 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the very title of the USDA article that this article links to uses the phrase that we've had an article entitled with since 2003: food security. Uncle G 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sometime this Thanksgiving Weekend I'll merge Food insecurity into Food security as a section; and I'll leave behind a REDIRECT. I don't think it will ever get long enough to be "spun-out" to a separate article. ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Proto::type 10:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Migdia Chinea Varela[edit]

Contested prod. The main author User:Migdiachinea is the subject of the article. The subject seems notable but I think that a debate is welcome in this case. Neutral. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the prod on the page, about a week after a warning on the talk page. My concern is that the article was written by the subject. I suggested placing the content as-is on the user's page, and moved it there myself when requested to. The author, Migdiachinea, is a newcomer. Evrik has offered guidance on the basic rules and procedures. We have both tried not to seem punitive about this. -- Rob C (Alarob) 20:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a real shame. She may have been notable. I have a problem with people writing their own bios, and then just not getting it. I say delete the page, and if another user wants to creat an acceptable one and Migdea doesn't touch it, then fine. --evrik ^(talk) 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have a problem with self-promotion, the IMDB listing shows numerous acting and writing credits in notable and popular shows. --Oakshade 00:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Can't stand to see the self-promotion either, but the writing credits on the Incredible Hulk are a slight kicker.
Keep She's notable -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:00, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilist[edit]

Neologism; unreferenced John Reaves 09:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Google results for "Nautilism" indicate it is the name of a race horse.--Folantin 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, and, searching, I can find no sources. (The author claims that this concept originated in Foundation and Earth. I don't remember any such concept from that book. I haven't checked, though.) It is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no source, no article, no problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no doubt that this is a hoax article. In addition, I suspect sock puppetry from user:RandomCollusion. LittleOldMe 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. Moreschi 21:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WMMartin 18:03, 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 There is ten days after creation still no assertion of notability in the article ("Prasad Babu is a Tollywood film actor, who is known for his roles as the villain.") and no evidence of his notability has been put forward in this discussion. Unsupported assertions are not sufficient for AfD discussions as we can't put them in the article. No prejudice against recreation as long as it actually provides evidence of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prasad Babu[edit]

Non notable actor. < 10 ghits, IMDB has only a filmography and the names of co-'stars' with no plot summaries, pictures or reviews. •Elomis• 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what you typed into Google to get less than 10 hits, I got over 600 hits [21], not all about him but plenty of them are. Seems to be very well known in India (see [22]). Also, I don't think you can cite IMDB's lack of coverage of Tollywood films as evidence of non-notability. --Canley 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current state. It is thin on facts and sources. LittleOldMe 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete IMDB does show some films, in which he acted, but the credits lists him somewhere at the bottom of the list. This leads me to believe that he a minor actor, hence article should be deleted. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - One day old stub. If it wasn't speedied, then give someone at least a couple of days to expand and source it. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is systemic bias in ghits. Perhaps finding a user more well-versed in Tollywood may help.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-But expand. This article is about a talented,notable Teluge film star. He is popular in Andhrapradesh.Another thing that which I have to remind u all is that Google hits must not be taken as a benchmark or yardstick in Asian related AfD's. Widely circulated news papers in Andhra Pradesh are in Telugu language. News reports from Telugu dailies are not available in google eventhough it have millions of copies. In this contest we have to consult with wikipedians from Andhrapradesh. Let them to tell this actor is notable or not...! Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all Indian movies are indexed in IMDB. Doctor Bruno 21:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No not all Indian movies are indexed in IMDB, not all people are indexed in Google, but there has to be a line somewhere whereby we have to look to international sources for evidence of notability. Systemic bias is a weak excuse waved as an example of Godwin's Law, that is, discrediting things by casting illusions about racism or other despicable phenomena, please stop. I would also note that having to consult wikipedians from Andhrapradesh to get information about this person is evidence of a lack of notability. •Elomis• 06:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all Indian movies are indexed in IMDB and not all people are indexed in Google. This is a fact. By the way, "non-notable" is not equal to "I don't know" Doctor Bruno 20:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something (noun)[edit]

This page is not-encyclopedic, but more dictionary-oriented. Wiktionary already has a very long page on the word "something" anyway: and there is not longer a need for the page on Wikipedia. --Alegoo92 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to transwiki. Caknuck 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. LittleOldMe 18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Hut 8.5 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ironically, the article contains Nothing. Wavy G 03:05, 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 CSD G1. Kimchi.sg 17:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skulism[edit]

Appears hoaxy. But even if it sincere, appears to be a non-notable religion. A google search only turned up 3 links, all related to this editor (I assume because some fo teh wording was similar).--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Totally unverifiable. Zero reliable sources. Fan-1967 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt the Earth Recreation of a deleted page Lurker ^oi! 16:48, 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 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave sharman[edit]

Written by subject of article[23], a glowing review frought with terms such as infinitely more pleasant on the ear and Self taught British guitar virtuoso Dave Sharman's prodigious talent. It has no references. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know using the 'V-word' is discouraged these days, but this is a vanity page. Lurker ^oi! 16:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Subject has a tenuous claim to notoriety (he almost was in David Lee Roth's band, he played in Miles Copeland's concert series), but the article oozes VSCT out of every pore and is nowhere close to using NPOV. Caknuck 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, Vanispamcruftisement, that is a brilliant portmanteau. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources are backed up, and sounds like an ad to me. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No doubt about his notability but, since it is autobiographical puffery, it needs to be deleted until someone neutral has a go at it. LittleOldMe 18:52, 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 keep. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutenews[edit]

This article was deleted per AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutenews. However, most of the Delete votes were based on the fact that it was copyvio. The article has been recreated with different text, so it is speediable neither as a repost nor copyvio, and the article creator has contested its deletion. However, it doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE and should be deleted. Herostratus 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability, does not meet WP:SOFTWARE . Demiurge 21:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the articles does not establish notability with respect to the WP:SOFTWARE criteria. JonHarder 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 04:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are articles on the web talking about cutenews, US government, McAfee Siteadvisor Rickvdn 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment neither of those appear to be non-trivial references, as demanded by WP:SOFTWARE. Also one of the developers listed in the article is "Rickvdn", so WP:COI may apply. Demiurge 11:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment i have written the entire article completely neutral, didn't market it or whatsoever. I'm seeing myself more as an expert on the cutenews-area than a stakeholder, because my (Rickvdn) 'contributing' is moderating the support forum.Rickvdn 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non-trivial, widely used piece of software as can be easily determined through high activity in forums (almost 80,000 posts total) and many mentions in blogs and forums (google e.g. "CuteNews is a"). WP:SOFTWARE is a guideline, and still in the proposal stage at that. We shouldn't delete articles about software which is clearly in wide use just because it may not have been picked up in a magazine yet.--Eloquence * 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely more widely-used than other CMSes that get mentions/articles on Wikipedia. Also, like the guy before me said, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed policy and isn't even in effect yet. ShadowMan1od 03:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why delete an article on a piece of working software? Corporal Clegg 06:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep meh... piece of shit software... but apparently popular crap. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eloquence, with added consideration that WP:SOFTWARE is a guideline still in the proposal phases. RFerreira 02:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely not trivial software - CuteNews is a highly popular freeware content management system and has a wide following. The page is just a mess and needs to be cleaned up.

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

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

The result was Closed early as keep. I've closed this early due to the fact there's no people asking for deletion (besides the nominator) below. A consensus to keep it has been achieved. Computerjoe 's talk 21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WordPress[edit]

Does not appear to have any mention in "multiple non-trivial published works", therefore fails WP:SOFTWARE. Herostratus 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:SOFTWARE as a widely used open source blogging platform, and received coverage. For example, through [Information Week]. -- Whpq 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's probably the single most popular piece of blogging software. -O bli (Talk)^? 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Even my local broadsheet covered it a number of times. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you're very wrong, it passes WP:SOFTWARE easily: there are several books about the software published by major publishers and therefore not trivial - Douglass/Little/Smith: Building Online Communities with Drupal, phpBB, and WordPress (Apress, 2005); Langer/Jordan: WordPress 2 (Visual QuickStart Guide) (Peachpit Press, 2006). There's also a Japanese book here. Please do a bit more research in future before nominating for AfD under software notability. --Canley 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley, tremendously popular software. Few pieces of software get Google News hits by the hundred. Oldelpaso 18:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - WordPress is probably the most widely used blogging software package in the world. — jammycakes 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would help the article, and of course prevent this question from ever arising again, if you added the books and articles that you are finding to a "Further reading" section in the article. Uncle G 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. --Canley 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This software is used by a myriad of major organizations -- including Harvard, The New York Times and CNET Networks -- and the software's site has an Alexa ranking of 425. Sean Hayford O'Leary 01:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — What the Fuck? Seriously, who hasn't heard of WordPress? — JeremyTalk 05:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wordpress is free, therefore not transgressing commercial ban requirements. It is popular and of great interest to the general public. Wikipedia should not eschew being a reference for people who want a neutral viewpoint, and to learn about a subject without concerns about 'agendas'.
Keep, WordPress is one of the largest blogging software in the world. Local presses in many countries have covered the website before. Millions of people use it too, and this is definitely an article that has encyclopedic purposes, and passes notability criteria without any doubt. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 07:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if this fails WP:SOFTWARE then WP:SOFTWARE is stupid and should be fixed. Cynical 12:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; Folks, this is why crying "there's no multiple non-trivial published works" (or "no reliable sources cited") is a really silly AfD nomination tactic. Everyone with even the most basic Googling skills can easily discern that this is a really freaking famous piece of software. Everyone who has ever investigated which blogware to use probably has heard of WordPress. AFAIK there was some books about WordPress too. Debian PopCon rank of #6926 out of 61035 packages is not something to take lightly (hint: mediawiki1.7 is today at #7722). If this doesn't fulfill WP:SOFTWARE, I don't know what will, and if the subject fulfills the notability criteria, lack of sources essentially becomes a cleanup job and AfD Isn't Cleanup®. In short, if your only complaint is that there's no sources or claims of notability, only nominate the article for deletion if you feel it's very unlikely these will ever materialise. If you get 139,000,000 Google hits, at least consider the possibility that there are good sources somewhere out there. Thank you. Sorry for the rant. I'm getting tired of this sort of nominations. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per everyone above. Please do a little research before you AfD something. WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline/policy, deleting something using that as an excuse is silly imo. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the pile-on. Definitely notable and verifiable. MikeWazowski 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Economic simulation game. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tycoon computer game[edit]

"Tycoon computer games are computer and video games whose name contains the word "Tycoon". The term does not necessarily mean a single coherent genre, nor the products of a single game publisher." In other words, this is an entirely arbitrary grouping of computer games based on their name, and qualifies as original research. (Radiant) 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research -- Whpq 17:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this was an actual genre, as proved by externally verifiable, reliable sources, then I would say keep. However this appears from my brief searching to be nothing more than an arbritary collection of games with a common word in their title. At this time, delete and recreate as redirect to Economic simulation game, as to my untrained eye at least 95% of tycoon games fit into the slightly larger criteria. -- saberwyn 21:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Economic simulation game, as saberwyn. Demiurge 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per saberwyn. I was just playing the free release of Railroad Tycoon before editing, but this does not consitute a distinct genre. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect clearly original research, and even so is not really a distinct genre, but a subgenre of the above. Redirect is in order. --Jayron 32 05:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. SYSS Mouse 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. with Economic simulation game 71.133.92.94 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I echo the nominators thoughts on this matter. If the only thing linking them is the wrod 'Tycoon' then why does there need to be an entire article explaining this? The Kinslayer 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There appears to be a WikiProject on Tycoon games so perhaps someone here should be consulted about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Tycoon_Computer_Games also the Open Directory Project seems to have a category attributed to Tycoon games: http://dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Simulation/God_Games/Tycoon_Games/

However, as mentioned already, a Tycoon game is really just another name for an "economic simulation game" except where you're running a company of some description. Consequently I think this should be merged with the "economic simulation game" article where a note should be made that many economic simulation games are sometimes referred to as tycoon games due to the large number of games in the genre having that word appended to their titles. --Rambutaan 00:08, 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 and let the PNT folks handle this one. Kimchi.sg 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

張圭陽[edit]

notenglish Yxz 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a Chinese version of Cheung kwai yeung, which has been prod'ed. Both are clearly a CV. Fan-1967 17:14, 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Klute (nightclub)[edit]

This article is mostly original research Bladeofgrass 17:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, original research. The list of D-list celebrities isn't particularly notable either even if it were sourced. Demiurge 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is awfully sourced, and I'm not sure that it would be easy to find sources on such a topic. However, the club does have almost legendary status in Durham (legendary, that is, for being monumentally appalling), and is a small pop culture phenomenon in and of itself. Because of that, I do think that Klute deserves an article. Delete, per nom. Barnas 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't awfully sourced, it isn't sourced and it probably never will be. The only two verifiable facts are that it plays cheesy music and it's the second worst club in Europe: not much for a whole page. Also, most of the 'facts' are opinions: "Andy Readman is well known for his doormanship and stern attitude","Klute has gained a niche and successful reputation" Wikipedia can't have original research on, even if thousands of students swear by it. Only when these facts are reported elsewhere can this be included in Wikipedia: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". This article should be deleted, and the only two verifiable facts incoporated into another article eg. Durham Bladeofgrass 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think whether something merits an article and the quality and verifibility of that article are seperate issues. That said, after re-reading the article, I'm not sure if it could ever be made into a decent article, so it should probably go. Barnas 09:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My eyes, my eyes! It's burning them with its non-notability. WMMartin 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre 2000[edit]

The following defunct shopping malls do not even come close to passing WP:CORP, and in view of their defunct status, i don't see how they could pass WP:LOCAL either. None of these are notable, or subject to the kind of media coverage that would merit inclusion under the guidelines Lurker ^oi! 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding

The reason is the same for all, not passing WP:CORP I am omitting articles which assert historical significance for their mallsLurker ^oi! 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These articles don't even establish notability even if the malls were still in business, but the fact that these are all defunct malls makes their inclusion all the more baffling. wikipediatrix 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically local history. LILVOKA 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've omitted articles on defunct malls which assert historical significance. I don't see why the demolotion of a mall is an important part of local history. Lurker ^oi! 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these articles assert any form of notability. Even in the narrow context of the history of a particular suburb I can't see them being particularly notable. Demiurge 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gone through articles like Seaview Square Mall, which provides multiple reliable sources in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V for its repurposing as an outdoor mall. If this is indicative of the lack of care and responsibility with which this list was constructed we've got big problems. Alansohn 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: so you're voting keep on the entire list based on Seaview Square Mall? Did any of the articles strike you as worthy of deletion? wikipediatrix 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went through most of them and found them to be thorough and encyclopedic. If we're given a laundry list it's perfectly reasonable to base a judgment on the worthwhile majority of articles. Did any of the articles strike you as worthy of retention, or will you vote to delete anything, regardless of facts? Alansohn 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alansohn- Reliable sources and verifiability are not the issues notability is. Seaview Square Mall has verifiable sources, but does not show evidence of notability. A couple of citations of local newspaper articles does not prove notability. If you want this article to remain, its notability you have to prove, not verifiability. Lurker ^oi! 18:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Give me a standard for notability and I'll satisfy it. Alansohn 19:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        He already did. It's called WP:CORP. And to answer your question, no, I don't think any of these defunct malls deserve an article. If any of them have attributes that make them notable, the articles do not mention them. wikipediatrix 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, let's look at WP:CORP, which specifies that "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: 1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles...". Just as an example for one article, Seaview Square Mall references two articles: 1. "Upscale development fills commercial corridor", Asbury Park Press, October 20, 2005 and 2. "For a while, plenty of parking at mall", Asbury Park Press, January 18, 2001. Both newspaper articles detail the malls efforts to repurpose itself from an indoor mall to an outdoor facility. QED. This sample article is indicative of a pattern of notable articles being deleted. Alansohn 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Just because some of these are verifiable or sourced does not make them encyclopedic. Agent 86 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're going to have to give an explanation of why they are not encyclopaedic, based upon our policies and guidelines. A bare assertion that they are not encyclopaedic doesn't cut it, especially when written as part of the a sentence that states that things are verifiable and sourced. Uncle G 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Similar arguments discussed in the failed AfD for Kyova Mall which has a long and interesting history. Malls listed are also notable for their localities and do not necessarily need to be representative of a more worldwide or national view. If that was the case, we'd be best erasing many localised entries because they fail to present a more nationalistic view. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kyova Mall article scaped through as a no consensus keep. Articles which did offer evidence for notability were ommitted from my nominations Lurker ^oi! 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.Edison 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most-to-All Not all defunct malls can be thrown in the same boat. Many of the above have vibrant histories and are significant for such things as being the first enclosed malls in a region. -newkai t-c 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a blanket. I predict right now that this discussion will end in a no consensus keep, because a whole set of malls, which should be dealt with individually, addressing whether each one satisfies the WP:CORP criteria on its individual merits, have been nominated en masse. Some malls are notable. Some malls are not. Applying the WP:CORP criteria to each mall individually, on its merits, with editors doing the necessary research on each subject, determines which are which. A blanket nomination will not. Uncle G 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all now, then go after them individually on their individual merits. Blanket AFD nominations almost never give the affected articles their fair day in court. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel for the nominator - you're damned if you nominate separately, and damned if you nominate together. Group nominations have long been acceptable, as stated in Articles for Deletion itself. In this instance, there is nothing wrong with the grouping as presented. In such circumstances, I find doing separate nominations leads to inconsistent results. Given that this is not a vote, the closing admin can take into consideration any comments that support retaining any of the nominated articles (if the discussion makes it clear that any of the articles are worth keeping) while deleting the balance. Agent 86 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last time we had a blanket nomination this wide we got the horrible Esoteric Programming Languages fiasco. If you're going to nominate these, nominate them separately, or at least in smaller groups. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Just because it's not your history doesn't mean it has no relevance; I agree with Seicer that many of these malls have great local value and relevance, even in their current "dead" state. Additionally, deletion of these malls will disrupt the Dead Malls WikiProject. Finally, some of these malls have been nominated for deletion in the past, and survived the deletion process - is there no policy against double jeopardy on Wikipedia? DiogenesNY 03:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep em all. Bulk nominations should only occur when the nominator has taken care to ensure that none of the articles nominated meets relevant policy guidelines. This appears not to have occurred on this occasion. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All This is not how multiple-nominations should occur. These articles share nothing more than a superficial commonality; they are all shopping malls. Some of them appear to be notable, and thus keepable articles. Others appear non-notable, and thus deletable articles. Someone should comb through these, pick out the deletable articles, and renominate ONLY those specifically, and each should have an individual nomination. Again, there is NO WAY TO ACT on this as a group as each article has its own qualities that make it either keepable or deletable. --Jayron 32 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did comb through the articles on shopping malls and leave out the notable ones. Lurker ^oi! 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm only here because Long Beach Plaza is on my watch list. As a mall, the plaza was fairly non notable. On the other hand, as an example of bad design, and poor planning decisions, plus its major redesign into a more popular shopping center, that should make it at least minimally notable. ^Blank ^Verse 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Seicer and BlankVerse. The nominator should also proposed List of defunct shopping malls, which is a part of a WikiProject for deletion. There should be at least some consistencey instead of picking articles at random. --Moreau36 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose this is the inevitable consequence of the "all foo are notable" school of thought. I have just deleted probably around 50 articles on malls operated by a single ocmpany, the vast majority of whihc were created in alphabetical order by a single account. Wikipedia is not a directory, folks. Especially not a directory of dead shopping malls. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With this AfD fast on its way failing it looks like we will need to recreate the Crossroads Mall article that was the subject of a speedy delete while this AfD was already in progress. There seems to have been nothing essentially different with the Crossroads Mall article and the others that still exist, including a relevant source about plans for the mall. Alansohn 07:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To add, Lexington Mall is no longer specific to the mall property but to the economic development that will ensue. Saul Properties has been in discussions for redevelopment, and the article would be excellent in detailing out this. This further proves that this "blanket delete" is not only in appropriate, but its clear the request was put in with little forethought and was hastily put together. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I'm going to endorse the concerns of people opposed to this kind of mass-nomination. Especially since it seems there is another one put out later. I wonder if malls are becoming the new schools? FrozenPurpleCube 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
South Sqaure Mall: Merge info into newer mall article and make a redirect. In the SS Mall case, a newer mall basically ran the old mall out of business. Therefore, I think the little info that's on the South Square Mall article should be merged into the newer mall, Streets at Southpoint's article. Then the old South Square Mall article can be either deleted or made as a redirect to Streets at Southpoint. As for the other malls, I don't really care. --TinMan 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that Crossroads Mall has been speedied, under criterion G11 (spam), which essentially knocks it out of contention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: These need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I ask that this AfD be closed and that a discussion ensue on each talk page of each mall for nomination for deletion. A blanket case is not appropriate for all of these. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost all are well kept and useful articles. --Caldorwards4 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that this is pretty similar to the school situation - is every school in existence intrinsically notable? What about schools that no longer exist? What about random buildings? The Smith Building in downtown Townsville USA. 100 people work in it every day; it is a major aspect of Townsville's "skyline" and a figure in its recent history; everyone in the Townsville metro area drives by it whenever they're en route from the courthouse to the town green. It is part of Townsville's psyche. Notable? Why not? I can personally attest that at least two of these malls are major elements of the local psyche. I know that's silly, but maybe it's better to be overly inclusive and then hash things out on a more specific basis than "these are just defunct malls, let's axe 'em all."Dmz5 02:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. A mall that was notable when it was operating does not cease to be notable after it is demolished. Given enough time and resources, including an index to the relevant local newspaper, almost every mall can be demonstrated to pass WP:CORP. Even without those resources, the mall articles should be kept as a part of history, in the same way that we would keep an article on a 17th-century Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mallcruft. WMMartin 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since becoming defunct does not bring with it a loss of notability. If there is a reason why one or more of these malls lacks notability, then they should be nominated for that reason. Vegaswikian 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to Wikiproject Dead Malls. Just because the malls aren't important to you, doesn't mean they aren't important to everybody. --Darkdan 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are part of history.
Strong keep. All of these malls are interesting to read about. Is Wikipedia somehow low on space? If not, why is this even being discussed?Freddyboy
Keep. Typing in "mallcruft" and walking away from the keyboard isn't a convincing argument for deletion. Many of these articles meet the relevant policy guidelines, so this blanket nomination is disruptive at best, regardless of whether or not it was made in good faith. Silensor 08:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless articles if written in encyclopedic style, notable to the local communities as important social arenas. bbx 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per TruthbringerTO. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vegaswikian, notability does not disappear. RFerreira 02:24, 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. Aksi_great (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musthy[edit]

Neologism, not even urban dictionary recognizes it. -O bli (Talk)^? 17:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'not even urban dictionary recognizes it' That has to be the ultimate seal of doom for an article concerning a putative slang term Lurker ^oi! 18:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that someone created a defintion on UD to spite me :D -O bli (Talk)^? 12:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce or delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't look like a plausible word in English (see English phonology#Phonotactics), much less in Spanish, despite the article's claim that the word is commonly used in Latin America. No word with this spelling would be likely to catch on in either language due to the difficulty of figuring out how it was supposed to be pronounced in English and the implausibility of a silent "h" appearing after the letters "st" in Spanish. --Metropolitan90 18:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like it was made up in school Lurker ^oi! 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced.-- danntm ^T _C 14:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roofing The Owl[edit]

Probable hoax definition. Absolutely no Google hits. Katr67 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverified neologism. WP:NFT. Demiurge 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT went through my mind too when I read it. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; anti-NFT and also against WP:NEO. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hilarious hoax. "Not to be confused with roofing the shed" was a particular highlight. Wavy G 02:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but ultimately this is an unverified neologism, maybe WP:BJAODN.-- danntm ^T _C 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the Owl Danny Lilithborne 11:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Village School for Children[edit]

Notability not established for this obscure school, claims are unsourced. Nothing special or encyclopedic about it. Gets only 50 unique G-hits out of 75 total. wikipediatrix 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montessori method. Individual school is not notable. —ptk✰fgs 23:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school is the only Montessori Method school in New Jersey that offers a full PreK to eighth grade program for students up to age 15, is the largest Montessori school in the state of New Jersey and is the site of the primary Montessori teacher training facility in North Jersey. Based on the unique characteristics of the program, all of which is sourced and documented, the article meets the criteria for retention of WP:SCHOOL. Alansohn 00:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Google hit counts don't determine Wikipedia's content. --Rob 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, practically all schools are notable because by their very nature, they have a reason for existing that differentiates them from other schools, hence they have notability for filling that niche. In this school's case, it is the only New Jersey satellite school for the Center for Montessori Teacher Education. Therefore, notability is established. Highfructosecornsyrup 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely not. The claim that "practically all schools are notable because by their very nature, they have a reason for existing that differentiates them from other schools, hence they have notability for filling that niche" is simply a long drawn out way of asserting that all schools are notable. The "niche" that these schools fill is no different than the different niches that corner stores and individual firehouses fulfill. JoshuaZ 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think individual firehouses should be automatically notable, actually. All towns are notable, and firehouses and schools are integrally connected to their towns in a way that banks and stores obviously aren't. Highfructosecornsyrup 04:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think many schools are notable, and I have continued to work hard to improve articles and argue on behalf of school articles facing AfD. I find it hard to see that all schools -- even elementary and nursery schools -- will have sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate notability. When I saw this AfD, I revisited the article and questioned whether the article had enough there to support a claim of notability per the WP:SCHOOL proposed guideline. As it stood at the time, it probably didn't. I expanded the article, added sources and came to the conclusion that a strong case could be made for retention. If I had been unable to find any criteria for retention, I could have voted to delete, which I have done for many school articles. Arguing that all schools are notable is no more reasonable than arguing that no schools are notable. We need to find a middle ground, and pushing the premise that all schools are notable is, at best, hard to justify. As I learned in a test-taking skills class way back when, any statement that begins with either "all" or "none" is rarely true. Changing your statement from "all" to "some" -- or even "many" -- would be a good bit easier to support. Alansohn 05:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "practically all", not "all". For reasons already stated, I believe public schools should automatically be considered notable for precisely the same reasons that all towns/cities/communities currently do under policy. Private schools are another matter, although the niche markets they often serve tend to give them notability and WP:RS-satisfying press. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alan. JoshuaZ 02:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sugar guy Albatross2147 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. bbx 08:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school is remarkable and notable for its practices as described by Alansohn. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. This article is wonderfully sourced and as the largest Montessori school in the state of New Jersey is unquestionably notable. As has been demonstrated countless times before, "unique" Google hit counts are completely worthless; stop citing them. Silensor 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Kukini 18:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tens[edit]

Contested prod. Original reason for prod: No reliable sources (cited book doesn't exist). Looks suspiciously like Something made up in school – Gurch 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New book title was added, but a book that only shows as available from one single Norwegian website looks dubious, and uncheckable. I don't know if this is real or not. I do know it can't be Verified from Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 18:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Cite something sufficiently published to be picked up at a local library. RichMac (Talk) 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it isn't "according to Hoyle".... Akradecki 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Point "tens" and "Tens" at "TENS", as before.Pol098 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability and impossible to verify. But, oh the possibilies...hmm, lets see: "Tens, as in one step beyond 'dressing to the nines'?" Or perhaps, "the meal right before Elevenses"? Or better yet, how about, "Tens, as in the number of people who have heard of this before?" Wavy G 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, single purposed accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Narutimate Accel[edit]

There are no sources for this game except for a poster in Japanese that the article links to. A Google search for "Narutimate Accel" brings up nothing. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aurunei 18:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a source. Nothing comes up on Google because it was recently announced and the game is in Japanese (and you're searching for an English term). --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINACB--BITTECK 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#CBALL does not apply. The article does not contain speculation and there are first and second-party sources, both of which are reliable. –Gunslinger47 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only source right now is a single magazine scan, not enough to pass WP:RS. Feel free to recreate when more reliable sources about the game are found. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The scan has been corroborated, and the issue of Weekly Shonen Jump most certainly contains an advertisement for it. Further, the developers have officially announced it and revealed its website]. –Gunslinger47 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, change my vote to a keep. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Game needs some noteriaty before it deserves an article. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was announced less than a day ago in Shueisha's Weekly Shonen Jump, the magazine that the Naruto manga is published in. That's about as reliable as it gets; might as well be V-Jump. CyberConnect2 has also announced that the official website will be opened on the 27th. No, google searches won't net anything, webcrawlers don't work that fast. Especially when you aren't using the Japanese title. WtW-Suzaku 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the fact that it exists, what exactly do you know about it? Nothing. One cover does not a definitive source make. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We know that it exists and that's enough. --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing it exists is not enough. We don't know anything about it. You can write a grand total of one sentence that isn't crystal balling. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUm, what? At the very least it deserves a stub, until more information comes out. A higher resolution scan is now out, so translations should follow shortly.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9307/narutimateaccelannouncerr1.jpg - From Weekly Shounen Jump Issue #52 WtW-Suzaku 21:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The newest in a series of games, and obviously noteworthy. - !Malomeat 06:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source is reliable. It's not crystal-balling. There are hits for the Japanese. This is not a great stub, but it can be fixed. Dekimasu 06:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Malomeat said, it's the next in a series of games that already has articles here. If it gets deleted now, it'll just get remade when more info comes out. The Splendiferous Gegiford 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the fifth game in the Ultimate Ninja series, aka Narutimate. See here for the four other Ultimate Ninja articles:
- Naruto: Ultimate Ninja
- Naruto: Narutimate Hero 2
- Naruto: Narutimate Hero 3
- Naruto: Narutimate Portable –Gunslinger47 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a resource and there is nothing violating about the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ameratsu (talk • contribs) .
Keep: the entire info on the game will be announced nov. 27 so we can wait and see —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.34.209.157 (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Quite notable, you can't get more reliable than the very magazine that distributes this stuff. Treima 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - http://www.cyberconnect2.jp/narutoA/index.html Can we just keep it already? WtW-Suzaku 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 (have put a link and mention in Ann Arbor, Michigan). Proto::type 10:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Mission Community Church[edit]

Non-notable church whose article does little more than state that they exist. wikipediatrix 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not the subject of any reliable sources. The only articles in Google News are about a member who died in Iraq [24]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs)

Delete No establishment of notability, also lacks Reliable sources. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ann Arbor, Michigan and add a sentence or two about the church there. Not a useless topic, just doesn't have enough information for its own article right now. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub of viable church. Kukini 18:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JYolkowski. The Church does not appear to be notable in the context of an encyclopedia. --Midnightcomm 19:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a wholly unsourced biography of a living person (I managed to confirm exactly 2 data: Josh South exists and was in some way associated with the Republican Party in Florida in February 2006.) that had no non-controversial version in its entire history. Start again, citing sources for everything. If you cannot cite reliable sources that are independent of M. South, do not write. Uncle G 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Hanline[edit]

Irrelevant article

Comment This article was created as Josh South and was a bio of someone of that name. The nominator expanded the article. Since then it's been totally blanked, and then moved to this name, despite the fact that none of the versions seem to mention anyone named John Hanline. The article is totally empty except for the AFD notice. Can you tell us what is going on here? Fan-1967 18:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The blanking is apparently because of libelous claims of an affair, such as here. wikipediatrix 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So who's John Hanline? Fan-1967 18:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know but I do know he probably isn't notable. John Hanline + Florida on Google gets only four hits. wikipediatrix 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it sourced? Otherwise, delete per WP:BLP/WP:N, take your pick. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 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 WP:BLP, "incident" demonstrably a hoax. Kimchi.sg 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush cottaging incident[edit]

This incident isn't verified, and there's not a single source quoted. If it is real, I'd be surprised. But it's for deletion, so discuss amongst yourselves. WallGrooveRider 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:BLP. Garbage. Fan-1967 18:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Libellous hoax Lurker ^oi! 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What documents? Delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For god's sake, this ain't no hoax, discuss this on WP:ANI if you're really concerned, but chill out, man! It's real, and the US Congress are discussing it! --Bell jaxxa 18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete definite hoax/attack. President Bush was in Vietnam on the 17 November at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. --Canley 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This happened at 3AM. For god's sake, he WAS arrested for cottaging recently, grow up. This is a real incident, he is currently being investigated. --Bell jaxxa 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here's my source, how about you grow up and show us yours. So it happened at 3am... what, when President Bush was in Moscow, Russia [25]? Come on, stop trying to convince us this crap is true! --Canley 18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hoax article, and a violation of WP:BLP. --SunStar Net 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free Advice Don't type "Bush cottaging" into Google if you are at work. Lurker ^oi! 18:35, 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 no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 07:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folio (Company)[edit]

Small school project business that ran for just over 6 months and generated 800 pounds of revenue. Clearly fails WP:CORP. Self promotional, a major portion of edits were done by James Fisher, listed as company's Assistant ICT Director. Previous nomination was left as 'lack of consensus' though most votes where to merge. RichMac (Talk) 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion by a member of the project. Lurker ^oi! 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-notable, completely and utterly fails WP:CORP. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6 month Young Enterprise (that's what it was called when I was in UK secondary school <cue theme tune>. I dunno about this "Junior" stuff) project that dramatically fails WP:CORP, despite doing much better than our team ever did (never got much past our second "meeting" and we somehow let our Treasurer get away with spending our budget on random crap for himself when everyone had forgot about the whole project). Wikipedia is not a high school yearbook (not that they have these in the UK anyway)). Article's been around way too long. Props to RichMac as a fellow random patroller . Bwithh 03:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 'props'. Always nice to hear appreciative comments. 'Props' for handing out 'props'. ;) RichMac (Talk) 10:31, 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 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne E. Baumann[edit]

This article is a recreation of a vanity article that was deleted under the {{prod}} process (thus speedy delete does not apply). The creator of this article has only created articles about herself and her work, the articles for which have also been deleted (i.e. Suzanne Baumann, Isisvoice and ISIS VOICE). Agent 86 18:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--SUIT 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete V-word Lurker ^oi! 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rewrite—A German version of this article was proposed for deletion in April 2006. The English entry appears to be a bad translation of the German version. The result of the German discussion was to keep the article for the time being. The main complaint with the German article was its biased viewpoint. I think the English version may suffer from the same problem—it's borderline notability, but very poor composition. Dall ben 22:05, 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 already Merged and redirected to Furry Convention (don't often get to say that). Yomangani ^talk 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FurFright[edit]

No evidence of notability outside the furry subculture, and is a relatively minor convention within the subculture. Only around 500 attendees. BigE1977 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 18:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill and skin, er delete No notability. Best kept to the somewaht scary environment of the furry wiki Lurker ^oi! 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Skin? That's fursecution! Anomo 04:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a worthy encyclopedia candidate. LittleOldMe 18:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Edison 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes! My daily opportunity to use the word "furrycruft"! --- RockMFR 19:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should be stub'd and more relevant information should be obtained and then re-voted Andrew4010 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. There is another article at WikiFur with much more information than a single sentence about a furry con. Noting that the deletion of other fur cons from last week also sets a precedent for the purpose. --Dennisthe2 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given this situation appears to be cropping up with some regularity (unsurprising, since there are over 30 active furry conventions depending on how you count it, and more every year), would some kind of a Furry conventions summary article with redirects from these titles - as suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwest FurFest - be more acceptable? People clearly come to Wikipedia to find out about the conventions, so if Wikipedia isn't willing to cover the topics in depth because it feels there is not enough information that can be verified by those outside the fandom to make a good article, then perhaps an article which included the bare verifiable details for the lesser conventions and directed people to the convention's website and to WikiFur for more information would be appropriate? I hesitate to suggest this, because as the founder of WikiFur it would direct more traffic to a site I'm involved with, but it seems like people above are suggesting that people should be directed there rather than create articles here. While each furry convention has its quirks, they share many common features - it would not be hard to create a general overview of what a furry convention is, which would give value to the article beyond that of a simple list. GreenReaper 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably a good idea. Only larger cons tend to be noteworthy enough for encyclopedic purposes, but a more general article including (and not limited to) a list is typically more acceptable. You can be bold and merge the existing ones (or summaries, in the case of the few larger ones that would meet notability criteria) to such an article. No need to wait for them to be AfDed. Links from such an article to the conventions' websites would seem appropriate as well -- just be careful that the article doesn't read like advertising copy. Shimeru 09:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have a skeleton article setup. I'll flesh it out, get the summaries written, and post it after I catch a few hours sleep. GreenReaper 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took a little longer to get summaries of them all down, and appropriate references, but I will be posting this tomorrow. This need not affect the progress of this AfD - I intend to redirect it once the article is up. GreenReaper 10:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's up. I'm redirecting the appropriate pages (including this article) right now. GreenReaper 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Merge and Redirect to a central article, per the commentary involving GreenReaper above. Great idea, if you ask me Green, you might want to take care of the redir's also. --Dennisthe2 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of a talk page convinced me not notable. Anomo 04:57, 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 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Eastman[edit]

This article has been listed at AfD because I'm not certain we need to list every single Internet meme. Sources are cited, but is this really notable as an internet meme?? The creator of this article has already created two other articles, both of which are being discussed at AfD. SunStar Net 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "various vBulletin forums" are not a WP:RS. Demiurge 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete as an attack page contributed by a user with a history of vandalism and/or incivil behavior. Rossami (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiF 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I checked the CSD page, but I can't bring myself to call speedy. --Dennisthe2 03:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, attack page. Danny Lilithborne 11:37, 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. Proto::type 10:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not-for-Profit Webmaster Round Table[edit]

No assertion of importance, a whopping 30 google hits. Tagged prod, prod removed without comment Dr Zak 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great free resource for Web folks working for not-for-profits - why get rid of the information about it? As the article states, the Red Cross, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Amnesty International, the Children's Aid Society, the American Museum of Natural History, etc. have participated in the meetings over the years. Gehrman 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why get rid of it? Because it's not covered in reliable sources independent of the organization itself, so that it meets the Wikipedia notability criteria. The article does not cite any sources and I could not find any. If such sources exist, provide them in the article. You should also be aware of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. JChap2007 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. WMMartin 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not advertising - note "at no cost." It's a forum and mailing list in which all participate as equals.
You can advertise things that are not for sale, to get them better known. Wikipedia is decidedly not for promotional purposes. -- nae'blis 02:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Duckworth[edit]

A Google search reveals no evidence that this is a real author; article does not include any sources FisherQueen 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely a hoax. Google shows nothing for Duckworth, nor for his influence "Sam threadgill". IrishGuy ^talk 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find plenty of Henry Duckworths, but none of them match the description. Hut 8.5 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Comnplete nonsense--SUIT 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author's only other contributions have been vandalism (although, when blanking a page, they graciously left an edit summary of: "Blanked the page" -- at least there's something to be said for ettiquette). Wavy G 02:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a hoax article; no ghits, no other references anywhere else on the web for this particular Henry Duckworth. --SunStar Net 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep.--Hús ö nd 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Leung[edit]

two film only non notable actors. N1333 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significance of the films and of the character seem to warrant inclusion- she's no Anna Paquin, but she seems notable enough to me. -FisherQueen 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep joke nomination? Major role in multi-million blockbuster warrants notability. Camillus (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Camillus. - fchd 20:55, 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 02:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HHO[edit]

Was deleted in process in August 2006, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO Gas and deletion reasons there. Please also compare Brown's gas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination) and further references given there.

User:Nseidm1 editing/re-creating these articles may be in a Conflict of interest.

Everything salvagable from these articles which is in consensus with standard chemistry can be treated in Oxyhydrogen (= de:Knallgas), the standard chemistry and engineering term.

Pjacobi 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between Brown's Gas, HHO, and Oxy-Hydrogen. This page is pertinent to establish the difference between HHO and Brown's Gas. There is absolutely no relation between HHO and Oxy-Hydrogen therefore the merger would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic at hand. Of course I have a conflict of interest, Wikipedia has lacked real substantive information for too long on these topics, and I am happy to be part of rectifying this defficiency. Noah Seidman 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only reason a conflict of interest should be a reason to not allow a user to contribute to a topic is if the user's conflict of interest is expressed in the material contributed. It is clear that my contributions are not for promotional purposes as my only intent is to share information and portray topics as they rightly deserve. Noah Seidman 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What information? There's not a single cited reliable source in the article. ColourBurst 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge/redirect Not a single citation in the article, so all we have is apparent original research. Something as vastly counter-mainstream-understanding as this topic really needs many verifiable and reliable external references to even consider it to be kept IMO. There's nothing in HHO that explains how it's different from Brown's Gas. It states that it is different "conceptually", but that for practical purposes it is described as being essentially the same actual thing. Phyisical things aren't concepts: if HB and BG are not distinguishable by any describable means, are they really different things, or could one be mentioned in a sentence in the other's page? Otherwise we'll just have two pages full of the same debunking. DMacks 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Conceptually means the fundamental working! Practical means what does it do, how does it work? I see no rational in these comments for deletion. If a logical argument was made, it wouldn't come as a reason to delete it would come as an addition to the article. Noah Seidman 20:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like then there should be a page about that novel concept, not a page for a specific application of it that only mentions the concept in passing and mostly describes that application as being the same as something else. DMacks 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced bollocks. Dr Zak 20:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNot that much better than what was deleted 3 months ago. Edison 20:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to all above, ugly POV. It implies "The creator of this is a genius", of all things. And "Gross Misconceptions"? Flawed attacks?!? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, unverified, non-NPOV original research. Wikipedia should provide articles on non-mainstream science when it is notable in popular culture, backed by someone with a significant scientific reputation, or generating significant controversy. This is none of those things. It comes across more as vanity than anything else. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced, original research, and just plain odd. -- The Anome 01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & above Vsmith 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsubstantiated, not to mention patently impossible

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, should have been speedily kept due to the nominator being blocked as an AfD troll, but doesn't matter now :). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinosteel[edit]

non notable companies. N1333 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to this news article the business did $3.8 billion U.S. dollars in sales in 2005, with steady growth projected for 2006 and 2007. That seems like an awfully lot of money for a company that fails notability. Also, with over 30K G-hits, it seems noteworthy. Expansion is sorely needed, but I think we should keep it. Dall ben 20:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dallben, this is both notable and verifiable, but obviously needs expansion. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see above (Katie Leung), N1333 has been blocked indefinitely as an AfD vandal. Can probably close this as a speedy keep. --Canley 12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. Even current Google News shows 38 current news articles [26]. 2nd larges ore producer in most populated nation on earth. --Oakshade 04:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator (EVE)[edit]

Not notable. Description of a fictional ship in a MMORPG belongs on EVEwiki, not Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the game guide material here is removed, as it should be since we don't do game guides, there's no here left. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I do a lot of editing on EVE-Online-related articles here, and have told people over and over, both in Wikipedia and on the EVE-Online forums to not create articles on individual ships for obvious reasons. There is a single article for all the ships, and all information should be kept there. If its too long, sections should not be split off--they should be trimmed! — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong No Consensus I am strongly unable to make up my mind on this issue. 193.217.240.102 00:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Individual ships in a video game do not deserve their own articles, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hbdragon88 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't really add anything to this discussion that the other 'delete' comments haven't already said. The Kinslayer 09:55, 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) 20:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Plimptons[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read the post at Chris Gilmour's Diary blog, 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}}.

non-notable indie band. IrishGuy ^talk 20:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article mentions "reviews in the Scottish music press" which could potentially satisfy WP:MUSIC but I can't find anything above the level of blogs and forums via google. Demiurge 21:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews seem to be [27] [28]. The first is two (short) sentences which in my opinion fails the "non-trivial" test in WP:MUSIC. Demiurge 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t believe this entry should be deleted. The band is linked to other significant indie bands through its ex-members and has previously received a good deal of airplay on BBC Radio Scotland. I think this justifies the inclusion. Also, The Plimptons renown is rated higher on www.glasgowindieeyespy.blogspot.com than other bands which have non-contentious wikipedia entries. Scanned copies of notable press reviews can be viewed at http://www.theplimptons.co.uk/feedback.htm. Spacecool 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC) — Spacecool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The band's album and singles have been reviewed in Is This Music, The List, Metro and The Daily Record, all of which are national press in Scotland --Manc ill kid 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article illustrates no notability for any members, past or present. As for the website, there are two scans. The first opens the paragraph on The Plimptons with Now, local bands for local people...which doesn't exactly illustrate notability beyond the locality. The second is unreadable and instead has a graphic showing a very small paragraph. IrishGuy ^talk 21:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to construct another article for a now defunct band which featured current members of Camera Obsura, Dananananaykroyd and The Plimptons. I think the link to these bands alone justifies the inclusion of this article. Spacecool 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members of another defunct indie band with no article doesn't denote notability per WP:MUSIC. IrishGuy ^talk 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is under construction. Doesn't the fact it’s a former band of a member of Camera Obscura Justify it's entry?Spacecool 21:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't show any verifiable proof that any members (current or past) have any level of notability. IrishGuy ^talk 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if some geezer from Camera Obscura (band) was a member, it would be a good idea to mention that in the article, and put in a link to [[Camera Obscura (band)|]]. The fascinating WP:MUSIC guidelines do, if I remember right, suggest that bands which had people from famous bands (Camera Obscura famous ? That'll be right) in them are famous themselves. Bollocks if you ask me, which you didn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the issue the existence of the article itself or the scale of the article given the bands current status? Spacecool 21:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE, WP:V/WP:RS etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Plimptons are becoming notable in the Glasgow music scene for their distinctive style of 'Comedy Scot-rock', partially satisfying criteria 7. in WP:MUSIC. And I have one of their albums, and I'm not even from Glasgow - actually, thinking about it, their music is available from stores further afield (e.g. Piccadilly Records (.com)). Which is nice. . Pricefix23 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) — Pricefix23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No coverage by reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Users Manc ill kid, Pricefix23, and Spacecool should declare their interest in the article. Manc ill kid is the manager of The Plimptons and is trying to use Wikipedia for self promotion of his ban, the other two he admits on his blog [29] are friends of his that he has recruited to help with this promotion and preservation. Further Manc ill kid's quote that the band have achieved notable coverage on the Glasgow indie spy web site [30] is true because it is Manc ill kid that runs that website. At the current time The Plimptons are not a notable band and have achieved only minor coverage, when they achieve better publicity that can be verified and is independent of self-promotion by the manager than there would be grounds for inclusion, until then... delete. Dancetothemusic 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC) — Dancetothemusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Its a fair cop, but as has been automatically pointed out, it looks very much like you've signed up to wikipedia for the sole purpose of deleting this entry. Can you explain whether you have any interests or bias here? And, check your references I never said that the band achieved notable coverage on Glasgow Indie Eyespy --Manc ill kid 15:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry no one ‘recruited’ me. I was contributing to this discussion before Manc ill kid was. Spacecool 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I looked at all of the Google hits on the band and couldn't find a non-blog review of them or their albums. Manc ill kid (above) mentions album and singles reviewed in The List, Metro and The Daily Record—I checked all of their websites and couldn't find any article on the band—I even reviewed all of the covers of The List since 1999 and didn't see any article on them. From my research, I don't see how this satisfies WP:MUSIC. Dall ben 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Songs of Ignorance and of Inexperience (album)[edit]

Independently released album from non-notable indie band. IrishGuy ^talk 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t believe this entry should be deleted. The band is linked to other significant indie bands through its ex-members and has previously received a good deal of airplay on BBC Radio Scotland. I think this justifies the inclusion. Also, The Plimptons renown is rated higher on www.glasgowindieeyespy.blogspot.com than other bands which have non-contentious wikipedia entries Spacecool 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't make for good references. Comparisons to other articles are irrelevant. The band article doesn't illustrate any notable members, past or present. IrishGuy ^talk 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to construct an article linking this band to current members of, amongst other bands, Camera Obsura. I think this justifies the retention of the article. Spacecool 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating another article doesn't give any notability to this one. How does this band or this album meet WP:MUSIC? IrishGuy ^talk 21:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE, WP:V/WP:RS etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:01, 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) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pomp (album)[edit]

Independently released album from non-notable indie band. IrishGuy ^talk 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t believe this entry should be deleted. The band is linked to other significant indie bands through its ex-members and has previously received a good deal of airplay on BBC Radio Scotland. I think this justifies the inclusion. Also, The Plimptons renown is rated higher on www.glasgowindieeyespy.blogspot.com than other bands which have non-contentious wikipedia entries. Spacecool 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't make for good references. Comparisons to other articles are irrelevant. The band article doesn't illustrate any notable members, past or present. IrishGuy ^talk 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to construct an article linking this band to current members of, amongst other bands, Camera Obsura. I think this justifies the retention of the article. Spacecool 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating another article doesn't give any notability to this one. How does this band or this album meet WP:MUSIC? IrishGuy ^talk 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE, WP:V/WP:RS etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:01, 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 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bannister Congdon[edit]

Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. President of a company, son of a millionaire, father of five does not notability make. Camillus (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePresident of NN company is also NN. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 23:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also Edward Chester Congdon. Camillus (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a geneological database either. He's not a noble. Can probably be speedied for want of assertion of notability. Note: The East Duluth Company may have been an important company in its day, but seems only to be known for its rare stock certificates these days. 13 Ghits. Ohconfucius 03:59, 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 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Chester Congdon[edit]

While there are other members of the Congdon family who may meet the Wikipedia biographical guidelines I find nothing to suggest that Edward Chester Congdon meets these guidelines and nothing in the article suggests this is the case. Delete.--Isotope23 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, notability not asserted. Demiurge 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion or evidence of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia not to be used as a memorial site/family history site. Camillus (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See also Walter Bannister Congdon. Camillus (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious lack of notability. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a geneological database either. He's not a noble. Can probably be speedied for want of assertion of notability. Ohconfucius 04:00, 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 Speedy Delete nonsense (G1), attack page (G10) and no notability asserted (A7).--Hús ö nd 00:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perincheril[edit]

All revisions seem to be attacks or otherwise nonsense. No claim to any real kind of notability. (No sources, etc.) --Chris (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This definitely meets the criteria of db-spam. Diez2 21:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Del As an attack Page. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 23:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur scribe[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. It does not provide any information as to how the website is notable, or exactly what the web site contains. Diez2 21:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:WEB. No assertion of notability, no verifiability, original research, etc. Alexa rank of 126,909, though not a reason on it's own, still says enough. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, less notable than the contents of my sock drawer. WMMartin 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not a stand-alone, misses on all counts. I must say it could be part of a round-up of Websites around the globe and the originator should consider.Youtrue 00:34, 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 as nobody is contesting this. Yomangani ^talk 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical wrestling[edit]

Short dictdef article which does not provide any references/sources. Seems like WP:OR, and thus should be deleted per the WP:V policy. Original author stated that he could not provide any references/sources. Contested prod. Leuko 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I put in the article is simply a re-writting of something that appeared (and I recently deleted) in the Hulk Hogan article. The definition of this term was present in the article, where it was not needed, since people at all familiar with the industry know what the term means, and people not familiar with the industry could click the link the the article I made. I also imagine that a search though other wrestlers' pages would find similar redudancies.

I do not believe that this article belongs in the wiki dictionary, since, while it is only a definition now, it could be expanded into a full length article listing things such as famous wrestlers known for a strong technical ability, technical moves, schools that focus on this style, and much more.

This is not OR!Acewolf359 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Technical wrestling as such isn't a noteworthy concept - the noteworthiness comes from the wrestlers who implement the style. At best, a page on technical wrestling as a style of professional wrestling would be a dictionary definition and a list of wrestlers who arguably wrestle a technical style. Dealing with style on a particular wrestler's page is, in my opinion, a better way to do it. Mytildebang 06:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Put a sentence in the appropriate wrestling article, and, if you're really enthusiastic, a redirect. But it's not notable enough on its own. WMMartin 18:15, 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 deleted due to the consensus found at the concurrent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoops In The Sun VII (2006). --ais523 10:10, 29 November 2006 (U T C)

Joe "Pops" Cruz[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-22 21:33Z

Delete I speedied it originally. Non-notable founder of a non-notable basketball tournament. Dipics 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've added this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoops In The Sun VII (2006); they should all probably be considered together. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 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 speedy delete. -- Steel 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VIVISECTOR[edit]

This band doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The article doesn't cite any sources, or web references, and there is nothing to assert the notability of this band. SunStar Net 21:45, 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 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoops In The Sun[edit]

Non-notable basketball tournament. 10 team amateur tourney. Original author removed prod without discussion. My vote would be Delete. Dipics 22:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; I agree with the non notablity part, but an editor is allowed to remove the prod tag without discussion. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!}} 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising spam. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoops In The Sun VII (2006) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 18:15, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Commercial Aviation Register[edit]

WIkipedia is not the place for potentially large lists of information that are available easily on the internet and has no encylopedic value. If it was every completed it could be a list of over 4000 items. The creator has removed previous request for deletion because he has put in a lot of hard work into the article ! MilborneOne 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is sad that Josh has made what I regard as a mistake, but I think he's only just begun on Wikipedia and couldn't appreciate what's wanted here and what's not. Please carry on editing, Josh, and just graciously accept that, in my opinion, you made a mistake in starting this. I think it already has too many errors to be of value - Adrian Pingstone 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a mistake. It's also encyclopedic in my opinion. Please do not give up, Joshrice. --SonicChao ^talk 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up its going to get deleted anyway--Joshrice 22:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry but that would be almost the longest list in history. If you really want to keep it you should move it to your userspace. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course im going to say keep my page but it has been hard work making it--Joshrice 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been reviewing whether to support or otherwise the call for deletion, I was disappointed to see inaccuracies in the bmi listing, entered during November 2006. For example G-WWBC never entered service with bmi. PH-RXA was re-registered in the UK during the spring of 2006 as G-RJXM. bmi also took on a B767-300 PH-MCV in the spring. The ATR left the fleet in 2005. Have a look at bmi fleet for further details on the bmi fleet. These inaccuracies in the bmi fleet show that the information source being used is well out of date. Furthermore, the listing of G-ZAPM against Thomsonfly. It is owned and operated by Titan and has been also wet leased to British Airways and easyJet in the past twelve months, as well as one off charters. Based on this sample check I am minded to support deletion. Stewart 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory. WMMartin 18:17, 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 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young gl[edit]

Non Notable - Fails the criteria listed at WP:NMG - Contested Speedy Delete A7 Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 23:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no attempt to meet WP:MUSIC. Demiurge 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears NN. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 00:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A7) Not notable, search for "Young gl + Albanian" renders no related results.--Hús ö nd 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tehos[edit]

no notability Thamiel 22:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO. --SonicChao ^talk 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio from [31], the external links appear to be commercial sites selling his work rather than independent sources. Demiurge 23:59, 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 Game Over. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Of Drink[edit]

non-notable drinking game, Google results are not convincing Quarma 23:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in college one day. We already have Drinking game. (aeropagitica) 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFT. Don't forget to delete The game of Drink too! Demiurge 23:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game that has been in existence for 8 years that has members in four states from washington to north carolina. Don't delete this information. This is a legitimate game that deserves a chance to be delivered to the world. It is not a game that was "made up in college one day". Give it a chance to catch on. Don't be a hater please. I am working on updating the content to provide a more in-depth definition of the gameplay as well as the sub-culture that has sprung up around it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxxstar (talk • contribs)
- Comment If you want the article kept, it needs to be verifiable, which means you need to supply us with some reliable, notable sources for the information it contains. Demiurge 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Correction: Sources do not have to be notable, just reliable and non-trivial (and even the latter requirement comes from a guideline that is presently Disputed.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for things that "deserve to be delivered to the world", it's a place for information that is already out there. That's why you need verifiable sources. --Grace 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can i provide reliable verifiable information on the game when it has never been published or documented in any type of media outlet? That is what i am trying to start. The only thing that i could do would be to provide names and telephone numbers of literally hundreds of people, who are in the game, that could verify its existence. Other than that i am not sure what else i could provide. But i do think that, in the spirit of what Wikipedia is about, this content should be allowed. This game is certainly as valid as some of the other drinking games that are listed under your drinking games link.

Might I suggest taking your content to Blogger?, Livejournal or Myspace? Seems like that is what you're looking for. FrozenPurpleCube 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Grace 01:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see also The game of Drink. Can that be deleted as a result of this same discussion? --Grace 01:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, but I'll put in the AfD. --Dennisthe2 22:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with a caveat to Roxxstar that Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a means of marketing something made up in school one day. --Dennisthe2 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No verifiability = no article. --Folantin 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article is total balls, and, what is worse, the balls are made of crystal. Moreschi 10:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The game of delete Danny Lilithborne 11:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AfD for The game of Drink is present here. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now if I'd actually consisently sign my own stuff.... --Dennisthe2 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Non-notable" has recently come under attack as a criterion for deletion. 70.101.147.74 03:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure "under attack" is quite the right term for this - rather, it seems that the question of what constitutes notability is in discussion. Nonetheless, at this time, the discussion bears none on this discussion - let that one happen, and this one will happen, and if it can be justified to keep the article, we keep it. Currently, I see no justification. My vote stands. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's far more under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability than "what constitutes notability". But I agree with you otherwise; WP:NN whether it is an actionable guideline or not right now is of no relevance since WP:V trumps it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:V; principal author of article says article cannot be verified. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Roxxstar: If it's verifiable some day with third party sources, I strongly, strongly suggest putting it under Drinking game in a "Game variations" subsection or the like, or it will probably get merged into there by someone else anyway. There isn't anything special about this variant of drinking game to warrant an entire article. See WP:VANITY. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why are we wasting time voting? -- Zanimum 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon & North Line[edit]

Appears to be a hoax - article is unverified and I cannot find any facts to back it up. Please see relevant discussion at Talk:London Underground --Harris 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified/hoax, the Talk:London Underground people seem to have done a thorough search without turning up anything to support this. Creating user's other contributions do not inspire confidence. Demiurge 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. I think we can safely assume that if there was anything to this, the British rail and transit buffs would've populated this article with details and references already. Tubezone 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Redirect to Chelsea-Hackney line. Nothing useful to salvage from this article, it's just a guess-list of possible stations. Tubezone 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it's real (which I'm 100% sure it isn't), we can't have articles on "ideas" from Transport for London, WP:NOT a crystal ball and all that. Am convinced that rail buffs would know about this if it were even remotely true.--Canley 13:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax, and echoing Canley, any proposed line worthy of note would be verifiable.16:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete because there's a grain of truth to this; the article basically describes the long-planned Chelsea-Hackney line, which deserves its own article, although it is unlikely to be built in the near future, and this is wishful thinking; likewise the title "Wimbledon & North Line" is the author's invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProhibitOnions (talk • contribs)
Merge with the Chelsea-Hackney per above. Simply south 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chelsea-Hackney / Crossrail 2 effectively cover this and should be expanded. I can't see anything in this worth saving. Regan123 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Regan123 (as nominator, thought I'd better confirm my point of view in light of the Chelsea-Hackney point) --Harris 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WMMartin 18:20, 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 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Shaw[edit]

Delete. Shaw was dark horse candidate for mayor of NYC in 2005 who didn't make it onto the ballot because he didn't get the requisite 7,500 signatures. May have been marginally notable in 2005, but certainly isn't any longer. KarlBunker 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a dog in this fight as to keeping or deleting, but I am sort of uncomfortable with the idea that once notability is established, it can later be revoked. Have there been debates about this on Wikipedia already? Chubbles1212 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability certainly can be revoked after established by afd consensus - it's a policy, in fact. See WP:CCC. In this case, however, consensus for notability was not established due to poor close of afd. Bwithh 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate who failed to even get on the ballot. Not notable then, even less notable now. Original afd closure was totally out of process - there was one single !vote comment, a keep made by the creator of the article??? Afd should have been relisted to generate further discussion. Bwithh 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have anything invested in this article either way, but I just want to note that the outcome of old deletion discussions that result in "keep" can be revisited, usually by opening up a second (or third or fourth) AfD on the article, and linking to the earlier AfD(s) in the nomination. Also, remember that this VfD occurred over an year ago, when relisting may not have been so common, but the closer did keep the VfD open for 13 days, so please don't be so hard on him. Nonetheless, as per WP:CCC, notability can be revisited on later good faith AfDs, especially in such a marginal case.-- danntm ^T _C 17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. No hoper candidate in election fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted this AfD because the old format broke the automated parser. See page history for older deletion request. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 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.