Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 7

< November 6	November 8 >

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. Nishkid 64 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerru Dera[edit]

This is a non-notable person who supposedly founded a non-notable company, and apparantly a vanity article, that has somehow escaped notice for months. The only Ghits for "Kerru Dera" and "Kerry Dera" are from WP and its clones. "Dera, Inc." is a start up with no products and no sales. Donald Albury 00:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete. --Wareq 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN, a non-notable person who founded a non-notable company.--TBCΦtalk? 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a non notable puff piece (scope_creep 01:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Seems absolutely non-notable. Gimlei 01:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly non notable. Vanity piece. Xdenizen 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN, vanity, bedroom based PC company with parent's funding! --Steve 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VAIN looks like a good speedy TheRanger 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable autobiography by eponymous single purpose account [1]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax and conflict of interest. How could "the most profitable PC manufacturer in the world" have no products and no sales? Wavy G 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poster child of non-notable articles everywhere, which is about the most notable thing about this article... EVula 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kevin 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -64.26.154.194 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not so much non-notability, but more self-vanity. Atlantis Hawk 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why are we even voting on this? Clear WP:SPEEDY. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly hoax: "the most profitable PC manufacturer in the world". No. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteper nom. CraigMonroe 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is about some guy who didn't accomplish much, he just isn't notable enough to own his article. -ECH3LON 14:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability (people). --PaxEquilibrium 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one added the crucial {{db-bio}} yet. Tagged. :-) Kavadi carrier 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all a7, no assertion of notability. Author even attempted to put the article into the new category "MySpace Music". NawlinWiki 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imortal Sadness[edit]

The band fails to satisfy any criterion for notability as per WP:MUSIC. It is my first deletion nomination though, and I decided to avoid the speedy deletion process and take the safe route here. Gimlei 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD Also includes:

Taylor Lasch
Toxins 2004

Keep. Nothing particularly daft about it. --Wareq 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:MUSIC notability criterias, as the band hasn't released multiple albums on a major label, won a major music competition/award, or been "featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" (as evidenced by the 13 relevant results on Google, most of which are from Wikipedia and mySpace).--TBCΦtalk? 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Banging their own drum. Virtually unknown. scope_creep 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and can't spell immortal! --Steve 01:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC, crufty vainity piece. Xdenizen 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography for non-notable band, that fails WP:BAND. Proceed directly to myspace, do not pass go, do not collect £200. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. Kevin 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's primary author has also created Taylor Lasch, an article about one of the band's members (who I think may be the contributor), and Toxins 2004, an article about the band's sole album. For continuity's sake, if the band article goes, so should they. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, absolutely forgot about those two. Thanks very much to Wrathchild for adding those. Gimlei 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I've also added Toxins 2004 and Taylor Lasch to this AfD. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as utterly non-notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as unwilling to tag for speedy so I have done exactly that on all the three articles. For the record, delete all as blatant myspaceisms. Kavadi carrier 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telomere Music[edit]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; albums aren't widely enough released, media coverage is little to none. Crystallina 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC by a long way. scope_creep 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, non-notable musician who's albums have neither been released on a major label or mentioned in "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media".--TBCΦtalk? 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable musician. Xdenizen 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, NN --Steve 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noml, article created by an annon and untouched since. -MrFizyx 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Telomere seems to be listed on AMG and the Zoetosis album produces a review there. A search for Zoetosis also produces 1,680 Google hits. Oddly though, they all refer to the artist as Telomere, and not "Telomere Music". Kevin 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to be there yet. On the above, though, I'll wager the title was meant to be "Telomere (music)", as a disambiguation from telomere. Shimeru 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Daniel5127 (Talk) 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needs to establish notability first, then an article can exist. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 is; will move to the creator's or anyone else's userspace on request so the material which is verifiable can be sourced and merged wherever appropriate. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political economy of drugs[edit]

Thanks everyone for your help...I would love to merge this article, but am a little unsure of how to do so. Any thoughts would be welcome. Also, thanks for all of the encouraging comments. Any ideas on how to properly Wikify this would be helpful. Sixthsense1 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this back when it was just a little essaylet. Now it's a full-blown personal essay. Not badly written, but unencyclopedic and editorializing. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xdenizen 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, a soapbox. Unsearchable title (56 ghits [2] for the phrase "Political economy of drugs" outside of references to the book "The Political Economy of Drugs in the Caribbean"). -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interestng but not right for Wikipedia. Violates WP:OR meshach 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - creator's only contribution is to this article. Trebor 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is this relevant? WP:ITIS, the number of edits does not determine the quality of edits. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps this should just be re-written in a more encyclopedic manner. Atlantis Hawk 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge and don't bite the newbies. No-one had offered the author the "five pillars of WP" advice until today. A fair part of this material would add value to Recreational drug use. Mereda 10:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 10:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mereda. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Add Cites It is a good article and a lot of the information can be cited. There was also obviously a lot of work put into it. It seems to be a shame to delete the effort when it could be changed for the better. CraigMonroe 13:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The immediately preceding poster notes that the article contains a lot of work. True. So does any newspaper editorial, but we wouldn't include those. Clear violation of guidelines - surprised this isn't 'speedy'. WMMartin 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm not surprised this isn't speedy. For one, it doesn't qualify. For another, it contains a good deal of information which will increase the quality of the Recreational drug use article when the two are merged and the info is cited. →Bobby← 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, some information are useful, but most are not. The merge to Recreational drug use will improve the article. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of it, rewrite and merge the rest to the Recreational drug use. Gimlei 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace in the interest of not biting people; and explain to the creator what's wrong with it and what they can do better. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)
Delete Original research is not encyclopedic. Delete, and only merge that which can be cited. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite An essay is not original research - a paper is. If you read through it briefly you will note that most of it saying what other researchers found, with papers quoted at the very end. All it needs is a change in the introduction, maybe the tone and more formal referencing system. If the papers quoted at the bottom are available at libraries, this should not prove too difficult. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge with substantial trimming; article could factually review the approach of economic anthropology to illegal drugs and drug addiction. 7 November 2006
userfy and tell user how to include cited content in existing articles. Second choice: delete. Guy 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject matter is interesting, but not singularly notable enough to warrant its own article. The "gist" of the article could be useful in Recreational drug use per above, but there's far too much wrong with it in my mind to simply Merge. This needs to be started from the ground up to look more encyclopedic and less like an essay written for a Liberal Arts course. JGardner 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into relevant article. --Howrealisreal 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are major issues related to the organization of the article but there is potential to serve as a good article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Jihad[edit]

The term originated in one column written in the San Francisco Chronicle. It generated a minor internet meme, but does not appear to be an actual "movement" (as the article claims) covered in reliable sources. Like a lot of the Unitarian-Universalist articles, it seems to contain a lot of links. JChap2007 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dodgy sources. Vanity piece scope_creep 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Vanity piece with little merit. Xdenizen 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article based on humorous column, tries to give merit by linking to Unitarian organisations --Steve 02:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. -MrFizyx 02:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While term was mentioned in publication, there is no evidence that it became notable, it seems to be borrowing notability from related topics. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and notability is in question. Nishkid 64 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article dosen't make perfect sense. Atlantis Hawk 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a small section of UUA; perhaps a "trivia" section. Notable for a time among UUs, even wider at some points. SF Chronicle mentioned it several times, as well as other publications and internet sources. HellaNorCal 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been trackign this meme for some time. It's notablity can best be tracked by the number of "cells" that popped up, and the number of sermons presented on the subject. Mathiastck 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's mostly notable in UU circles, and not much elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (UU and UJist)[reply]
Weak keep, 106k Google hits make it a meme with some traction, and the merge target is not obvious; Unitarian Universalism? Jon Carroll? Internet meme? -- nae'blis 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute joke; not notable enough for an article. No merge: "Trivia" is non-encyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 107K google hits and there's an argument for deletion? Makes non-trivial claims about religion and humour, majority of "members" are non-UU.--Lev lafayette 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nishkid64. -- Szvest 13:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]
Keep I started the Talk page before seeing this discussion here. It said the reason for deletion was that it was redirecting, but it was a full article and I thought it was linked under Internet Phenomena. JoyceD 05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought space[edit]

Seems very much like original research. No sources are given, I could not find anything reliable, and the overall tone supports it. Crystallina 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a leader for the thought space website scope_creep 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no references --Steve 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above -- wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Xdenizen 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, found no support in my google search. -MrFizyx 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EVula 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, and because of its nature, it looks to be inherently unverifiable. JIP | Talk 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:V. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:V. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe create a redirect to Theory of forms... It sounds vaugely similar (sort of). At any rate, a re-direct could discourage re-creation.
Delete Unless a philosophy can be cited to reliable sources this is OR. The failure of the google search by MrFizyx shows it is not notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Nishkid 64 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Scientific Research, however unverifiable, should be kept in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs) November 7, 2006
- Then your opinion directly contradicts our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research official policies. Please read them. Uncle G 20:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Thadmoore's ~~first~~second edit was today, see also Thad Moore (if it hasn't been speedied yet, self professed notable 13 year old mathematician) Pete.Hurd 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per many above Pete.Hurd 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that the nomination was withdrawn and the article kept. JChap2007 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans[edit]

A non-notable organization within the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many of these (like the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--79 unique Google hits, no reliable sources) I am just prodding, but this one generates 15,000 Google hits (although I could not find a reliable source among them), so I'm bringing it here. JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC) JChap2007 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's a genuine religious organisation scope_creep 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this about.com page constitutes a reliable source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Media mention this past week in New York State's Oldest Newspapaer, doesn't tell much, but meets WP:RS, nom's own check suggests notability. -MrFizyx 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw both of those. The about.com piece reads like a press release and the Poughkeepsie Journal article quotes a member of the organization talking about something else, not about the CUUP. Merely generating a lot of Google hits does not establish notability. JChap2007 03:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: 709 unique G-hits is near the limit of what google will produce for any search (per WP:GOOGLE). This is some indicator that the organization's name is "out there." The organization claims to have about 70 chapters. [3] How big does an organization's membership need to be to assert notability? I have difficulty taking seriously the two criteria in WP:CORP#Criteria for clubs, societies, and organizations (well, esp. #2). -MrFizyx 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Out of 2 listed criteria one applies to English football teams? <rolls eyes> JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, entries in books.google.com look like potentially good sources. -MrFizyx 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Berger looks like a good source from the index. And it rates some discussion in the other books as well. Withdrawing nomination. JChap2007 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group seems to have notablity, I think it should be kept and improved. I have placed a references tag on the page. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic (film)[edit]

Film which doesn't seem to actually exist. 2006 is quickly coming to a close, but there's no mention of this movie existing on IMDB, nor any mention of Jessica Alba being linked to the project. fuzzy510 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Reporting about some future event. This is not what wikipedia is about scope_creep 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and no mention on imdb. --Steve 22:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Practically contentless, no sources, obviously incorrect information, fail notability, and as stated above wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Xdenizen 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the talk page said that the movie had been "probably cancelled" in february, and we have no verification that it was going to exist anyways. I doubt it's a hoax, but it sure isn't going to exist anytime soon. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Can't speedy delete it, though; I don't think any of the categories really fit. EVula 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, {{db-nocontext}} could work, but it's shaky. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and is not going to happen at all, since the year is coming to an end. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious hoax, it is clearly the work of some prankster.-ECH3LON 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: wait for a while and try to search for some more info. If nothing changes, then delete. --PaxEquilibrium 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per all of the above, however Keep if the film is in fact in the workings.
Delete current contents, then Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie. Plausible search term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May be worth a redirect per Andrew Lenahan. --Matthew Humphreys 09:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merging requires notability to be demonstrated and verified as much as keeping in its own article. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diverse & Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries[edit]

Only 72 unique Google hits for this (including the usual number of WP mirrors. No reliable sources cited in the article and I cannot find any either. I almost prodded this, but saw that another editor had asserted notability. JChap2007 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination -- wtfunkymonkey 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trebor 07:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations; see Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That thought had passed through my mind as well. However, Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations is basically just a list. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that it be reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. In addition, such a list may be objectionable to some as listcruft. I would suggest that HellaNorCal, as well as User: Canaen, who I have also been talking too about these Unitarian Universalist Association-affiliate substub articles, direct their attention to improving the articles on those UUA affiliates about which reliable sources have been published, rather than trying to save substubs that basically just serve as links to the organization or turning the list of UUA organizations into a linkfarm. JChap2007 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HellaNorCal and Canaen appear to be the same person. [4] JChap2007 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, as it stands, it is just a list. As well, several articles on that list already have articles on them. I suggest expanding the concept of the article to house content, so it is not simply a list of names. This should serve several purposes. Consolidating information, developing stubs which are not yet ready for their own articles, and making deletionists happy by only having a single article. As you have noted, JChap, CUUPs, one of the UU affiliate organizations, has an article which may have reliable sources. It is reasonable to assume that since one independent affiliate organization has been written of in reliable sources, that others may be found in the future. Closing with a note, I see both JChap and myself are posting this thrice at the three ongoing AfDs about IAOs or the UUA; perhaps this would be simpler if we simply discussed it at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations HellaNorCal 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. --Core des at 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Le Mieux[edit]

Does not assert notability. Google returns 65 results, most of which seem to be forums or blogs. Speedy tag removed. Amarkov ^babble 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD A7. hateless 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Supremely non-notable. Xdenizen 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I think the case has been made already -- wtfunkymonkey 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magi Network[edit]

Another minor UUA-affiliated organization not covered in reliable sources. The only citation is to its homepage on Geocities. The vast majority of the 977 Google hits for the term discuss a product with the same name. JChap2007 02:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. They're all talking about some program called "magi network library". Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per nomination. Not notable at all. Xdenizen 06:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations; see Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That thought had passed through my mind as well. However, Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations is basically just a list. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that it be reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. In addition, such a list may be objectionable to some as listcruft. I would suggest that HellaNorCal, as well as User: Canaen, who I have also been talking too about these Unitarian Universalist Association-affiliate substub articles, direct their attention to improving the articles on those UUA affiliates about which reliable sources have been published, rather than trying to save substubs that basically just serve as links to the organization or turning the list of UUA organizations into a linkfarm. JChap2007 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HellaNorCal and Canaen appear to be the same person. [5] JChap2007 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, as it stands, it is just a list. As well, several articles on that list already have articles on them. I suggest expanding the concept of the article to house content, so it is not simply a list of names. This should serve several purposes. Consolidating information, developing stubs which are not yet ready for their own articles, and making deletionists happy by only having a single article. As you have noted, JChap, CUUPs, one of the UU affiliate organizations, has an article which may have reliable sources. It is reasonable to assume that since one independent affiliate organization has been written of in reliable sources, that others may be found in the future. Closing with a note, I see both JChap and myself are posting this thrice at the three ongoing AfDs about IAOs or the UUA; perhaps this would be simpler if we simply discussed it at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations HellaNorCal 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Hours Gone (2008) film[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Page full of rumors, nothing verifiable. The "rumored release" isn't for 3 years. Contested prod by author. Leuko 02:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real film. The film is being partially shot next month and in the months to come. Please do not delete this page. Thank you and it would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndySawFan (talk • contribs) .
Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete IMDb has never heard of the movie or the "new and upcoming" director. The IMDb page for Robin Williams does not mention this movie. No relevent ghits. Without any sources to back it up, this looks very hoax-y to me. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't hoax-y i have sent updates to Imdb and the director is being added to the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andysawfan (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia has a policy on verifiability, and you need verifiable, third-party sources to back your claims up. Right now there aren't any, we can't find any, so therefore it is not verifiable and must be deleted. It might not be a hoax, but, without sources, it sure looks like one. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cant you just leave it and i add source links as soon as imdb updates them. And why did you guys delete saw IV, that film has been confirmed.
- No, we can't, for the same reason sav IV was deleted - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why does this need links to other sites... im submitting this true info to this site, should'nt you be happy... i haven't shard the info with other sites yet?
- Because with no way of verifying that the information in this article is fact, we have no way of distinguishing it from the mountains of crap that flow through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. We can believe the media or film databases, we can't beileve individual editors such as you or myself. Try reading the verifiability policy, it'll enlighten you further. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's still predicting the future. --Wafulz 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for lack of verification and for crystal-balling. NB: will the respondee to the comments please sign with four tildes as your lack of identity does nothing to improve your chance of being taken seriously. Eddie.willers 04:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also cannot find any evidence of Partners in Crime Entertainment
Delete, per above and due to its largely speculative nature. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, very likely to be a hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you wish to apply the 'crystal ball' guideline to movies, then nominate every film yet-to-be-released en masse. -Toptomcat 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is not so much the crystal-balling as the movie is completely unverfiable (and a probable hoax).. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We regularly apply the crystal ball policy to movies. The most common cases are where editors build articles about further movies in series or unannounced sequels to movies, based upon nothing more than wishful thinking on the parts of fans, or even their own wishful thinking.
  Conversely, if you wish to make an argument for keeping that actually holds any water, you are going to have to cite sources to counter the charge that this article is unverifiable. Because at the moment the answer to the question "Says who?" when it comes to this article is little more than "Says a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and no-one else.". Uncle G 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The crystal ball gets rolled out for games as well, but we try to keep content down to verified sources. Robovski 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble radio[edit]

Non-notable wrestling show/podcast with inconclusive Google results. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the ghits are for another site - http://www.therumbleradio.com/. What's more, there are only 524 of them. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge perhaps this article should be merged into that of its respective radio station. Atlantis Hawk 09:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge i agree with above.DINOMAN 18:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as is. Google produces results. The show is gaining popularity. cubsptrain 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is that a vote? Danny Lilithborne 20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN show. If the vote is merge there doesn't seem to be reference to the respective radio station, only 88.3 FM in Chicago. Does that mean WXAV [6] or WZRD [7] --Steve 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as is. The show is gaining popularity and is noteworthy.terdfergusson 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no other articles link to this one. Anomo 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, etc. No sources, no signs of non-trivial third-party coverage. G11 candidate. ergot 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ergot. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave the show. It's listened to by 30-40 online and about 100 within the Chicagoland area every week
Delete NN. Vegaswikian 07:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Somali Civil War (2006-present), although it looks like there may be a civil war brewing for the merge suggestion too. Yomangani ^talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somalian War[edit]

The "Somalian War" is not an actual conflict and all the events outlined on the page are part of the Somali Civil War. – Zntrip 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not all outlined there and cannot be understood as merely the same civil war that has been going on since 1991. The country has been in turmoil for many years, but starting with the taking of Mogadishu by the ICU countries such as Ethiopia have gotten involved. This is a specific conflict involving the ICU and those forces it is fighting. I really wish you would have discussed this before putting it up for deletion 8 minutes after it was made. Keep and allow people to expand it... ~Rangeley (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Somali Civil War page should be expanded if this information is to be included on Wikipedia. The Somali Civil War is an ongoing conflict and there is no need to have a new article. Also see Ethiopian involvement in Somalia. Pages already exist for this information. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this a serious nomination? The ICU declared jihad. Eritrea moved their troops into the forbidden zone and government officials throughout the world have said Eritrea is using Somalia to wage a new war. What more is needed before this is considered a separate war? KazakhPol 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrean involvment doesn't mean that this is a new conflict. – Zntrip 03:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same conflict that was going on between the Siad Barre clan and the Mohamed Farrah Aidid clan. This article is about the current conflict with the ICU, a group which didnt even exist in 1991. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a seperate war and should not be deleted. I believe this article should stay. Alex40045 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a separate war? – Zntrip 03:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is how is it the same war when the players are all completely different to those that fought in the original 1991 conflict. Somalia has been in a state of chaos, this is clear, but only recently has the war with the ICU been occuring. This war, with defined sides, deserves an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia has been in chaos since 1991. All of the armed conflicts in Somalia from 1991 to the present are part of the Somali Civil War. The article you created uses the name “Somalian War”; Somali is the proper adjective form for Somalia and the “Somalian War” is a name that you picked that is not recognized by anyone else. I will not say it again, the article’s information should be incorporated into the Somali Civil War page. – Zntrip 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Somalian is used when pertaining to the country, somali is only for the ethnic group. Now that that is settled, how is it the same conflict when its obviously different groups fighting each other in a defined conflict totally different to the one in 1991? The state of chaos probably should not be treated as it is now where its Barre vs. Aidid, but instead as the state of chaos that it is. Within this state of chaos is this defined conflict between the ICU and other parties, and it does deserve an article. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it's not a distinct conflict until reporters and analysts start saying so. It wouldn't be the first civil war to have multiple phases with occasional foreign involvement. Gazpacho 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and like Afghanistan, it should not be merged. You cant merge the Soviet War in the 80s with the American War going on now, even though there has been constant fighting. Like with Afghanistan, the Somalian civil war should be viewed as the general term to describe the chaos, whereas there are individual articles for the defined conflicts within it. It is a distinct conflict because it has distinct sides, this can be determined from reporting ~Rangeley (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that nobody's given a separate name to this conflict yet, and it could yet be settled. Keep the info in the Ethiopian involvement article until we have a name and a war. Gazpacho 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question here is not whether one SHOULD think of these as seperate conflicts, the question is whether people ALREADY DO think of them as separate conflicts. There has been no proof offered that this conflict is regarded as separate outside of wikipedia. Since such distinction appears to only be made by this article, it is Original Research, and thus deletable re: WP:OR. If references can be provided to establish this as widely regarded as a separate conflict rather than a continuation of the same conflict, then I will change my vote. --Jayron 32 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Somali Civil War (which should therefore have its infobox changed to reflect that it's still going on in some way) unless and until reliable analysts start saying that it's a new conflict. The parallel with Afghanistan (where a civil war involved Soviet action and then continued after they'd left) seems valid enough at the moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, if the conflict is deemed to be a new one, my guess is that this isn't going to be anything like the right name. Given the multiplicity of combatants, it's hard to say what will be, but "Second Somali Civil War" could well catch on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Jayron; Wikipedia only reports after other people say so. We don't invent a term for a change. --humblefool ® 06:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Those things are sticky. Imagine hearing a Somali warlord on BBC-WS: "We killed those traitors because we are at war with Eritrea! There is even an article on Wikipedia!". Stammer 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Even the first source cited in the article discusses this in terms of Ethiopia's involvement in the Somali civil war. JChap2007 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and don't know what to do why was Rangeley so swift in creating this article? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should simply work on this article because all it really is is a high-importance matter that's just a stub article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis Hawk (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's kind of what we're doing here. As I see it, "working on the article" involves both adding text to it and making certain it's named correctly and should be here in the first place. If there happens to be a source out there calling this conflict by this name (and editors more knowledgeable than I have said there isn't), then it should be added to the article and so forth. As it currently stands, though, there's a number of people suggesting that the best way to do things is to merge this information with another article - where it can be worked on - until later on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per above. Foreign involvement does not remove its status as a civil war. The Somalian civil war is not a country versus country conflict, even though various countries help opposing sides, the war is largely fought by Somalians. Besides, content is still substub. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Like the Afghan Civil War, this is a civil war that has gone through different phases. We should begin by adding to the Somali Civil War article and then split it up from there.(Am86 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Merge into the current period Somali Civil War (2006-present)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then make a disambiguation.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, a civil war is between memebers of the same nation. if there is a conflict involving external aggressors, it ought not to be recorded under a misleading title. -- Simon Cursitor 08:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but the Afghan Civil War article cited earlier on here is a good example of an article which breaks with that definition. Should it do so? I'm not sure, but it certainly does. The point about Wikipedia is that we're bound by what other sources refer to something as, so if this conflict is referred to as a "civil war" (as it appears to be), then a civil war is what we must call it. To call it something else would be a cardinal sin. Likewise, one can argue until the proverbial vaches return to la maison that a given world leader shouldn't be called a President or whatever, but if that's what people call him, then that's what we have to call him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what BigHaz has said: It does not matter what this conflict SHOULD be called. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the terminology. It is NOT a vehicle for changing ANYTHING. The only valid question is what do people ALREADY call this conflict. They call it the Somali Civil War. There is no compelling evidence of widespread recognition of a different conflict, or a different name for this conflict. Ergo, merge the non-redundant information into the Somali Civil War article, and redirect this one. It doesn't need to stay. --Jayron 32 17:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Nielswik_(talk) 14:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Merge --Nielswik_(talk) 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with existing article if journalists and commentators are not drawing a strict distinction (despite my belief that they are separate and distinct), but the main article should be VERY CLEAR that this is a seperate conflict with different participants and roots. Also, define "Somali Civil War" at the outset as an ongoing set of distinct conflicts. Riverbend 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge into Somali Civil War (2006-present) per above and then disambiguate. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a case where a discussion should have been held before putting something up for deletion. The article could have just been moved to that name to begin with and we could have avoided this lengthy talk and instead put the effort into writing the article instead. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly agree. —Nightst a llion (?) 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put - page discussions seem to sort out a LOT of issues, a deletion nomination so shortly after the page was made seems way severe. Riverbend 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Chaos[edit]

Prod was removed because it was previously contested, although the previously contested prod stood for 28 days before someone removed it. Anyway, no reliable sources to verify anything, and no indication of meeting any criteria in WP:WEB. Alexa ranking floating around 700,000 and very few related Google hits (after the first one and the wikipedia article, there's mostly stuff about other games of the same name, a few game directories, and an article on the war in Iraq. --Wafulz 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--note: Nomination is incomplete as of now, there is no link coming here from the article. Un focused 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. "Players online: 14" - that pretty much says it all. --- RockMFR 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely non-notable, as per RockMFR. - jlao⁰⁴ 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable fan cruft. Xdenizen 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 28 day prod shows it's hardly the most active article. Trebor 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fancruft, non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mud ad. One among tens of thousands, with nothing to distinguish it from any of the others. —Cryptic 15:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portable E-Mail Appliances[edit]

This is a really bad use of lists. I can possibly see this being useful as a category, but it's not even worthy of that. No definition of what is included as a "portable e-mail appliance". Also seems pretty spam-ish. --- RockMFR 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 04:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list should be able to provide more information than a mere category would. This list does not do that. Let it be a category, we don't need this article. --Jayron 32 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC's comment. EVula 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users. Useless article: too short list, topic looks too specific, no definition of "portable e-mail appliance" given, no information that would not be given by a category as well. JIP | Talk 11:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TBC, not even a list, what do you mean by "portable e-mail appliance", specify please. I don't see any need for such listcruft and this violates WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "...may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness." Unmaintainable by its own admission. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCLI[edit]

Vanity article created by User:Kcli-tv. I couldn't find anything in the FCC's TV station database [8], nor could I find any third-party sources for this TV station. --Iowahwyman 04:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a station that hasn't even signed on yet. If it's real, there will be reliable sources for it eventually. Let's wait until that happens. --- RockMFR 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for crystal-balling as per nom. Eddie.willers 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Crystal balling, vanity, spam cruft. Xdenizen 07:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be recreated later if notable. Trebor 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They said they REQUESTED KCLI-LP. Ask Kcli-tv what it is now, do an FCC query, and go from there! TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wait 'till it's notable †he Bread 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When it starts broadcasting it should be located at KCLI-LP. If the current content can be sourced and if it is rewritten to cleanly show it as planned and it is still going to go on air this year then the article could be created with the {{Future}} tag. Vegaswikian 07:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Movie History[edit]

Delete as nom. Article utilizes poor grammar, spelling, capitalization, syntax and does not seem to follow naming conventions. Information displayed is largely non-neutral POV and becomes especially worrisome—speculative and inacurrate—as it describes Spider-Man 3. No sources are cited and images are not used sparringly. While an article for the Spider-Man series of films might be nice, this is poor substitute. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of the reasons cited are reasons for deletion. Deletion should be based on the article's SUBJECT (is this a topic worthy of having an article on?), not on the quality of the writing therein. Tag it for cleanup, but don't delete it. The article might need a rename/move to a better name, and needs NPOV cleanup, as well as referencing, but the Spider Man movie franchise (as a cohesive unit) is a notable franchise, much like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Austin Powers. This is a badly written article, but a notable subject. Definately keepable. --Jayron32 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The whole article would have to be completely erased and re-written from scratch- just googling any random set of words will show it's a copyvio. --Wafulz 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-intended, but the whole thing is a copyvio from assorted websites and movie descriptions. Anything that isn't a copyvio is original research. Unfortunately, because of the copyright issues in this article, there's no chance of turning it into a useful article like Spiderman film series. --Wafulz 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly redundant article made up of original research, crystal balling, copyvio (e.g. [9]) and POV fancruft trivia. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article consists of redundant content and speculation. --Metropolitan90 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing salvageable. Postdlf 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, original research, totally redundant, there are copyright problems on the article, so this article has to go. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR ect ect †he Bread 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sad Delete It's a shame, but it's just a huge series copyright issues and OR and it could have been something good. Delete it so someone else can make something relevant and public domain. Robovski 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - in principle a valid article but current version has huge problems as documented above. --Matthew Humphreys 09:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BYYAH[edit]

Does not meet WP:V, no references. Contested prod (two separate prods). Wikipedia is not a repository of comedy sketches. Risker 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too minor to earn an article, and too unlikely of a search term to merit a redirect. --Wafulz 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 331 ghits, and half of those appear to be in Chinese. Caknuck 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trebor 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Prod was never contested, simply removed without comment. In my prod, I wrote "No assertion of notability; a video on youtube isn't necessarily notable." That is still the case; nothing has changed. -Amatulic 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already listed on List of Chappelle's Show skits. No need for its own article. BYYAHH! JGardner 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: it's not just a youtube video, it's on tv an dvd as well, it sure as hell isn't in chinese, what happens to be going on with your computer? a LOT of stuff is less than likely to earn a redirect, half of wikipedia is uncommon, isn't that kind of half the fun?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexican1 (talk • contribs)
- It's an incredibly minor skit with no reliable sources or verification, making it original research. If people want to learn about Chappelle skits, they can go to List of Chappelle's Show skits. --Wafulz 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's irrelevant what the rest of Wikipedia is like; we're concerned with one article here. If you have a problem with others, either fix them, redirect them, or propose them to be deleted. -Amatulic 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Recreation of previously deleted page, CSD A4 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinstack[edit]

A BlackBerry user forum which does not meet WP:WEB. There are no links to the website (aside from links from its own forums) and no independent reliable sources to verify anything. Has an Alexa rank of around 40k, though I should mention it's a forum for an e-mail-based device, so the Alexa rank might be skewed a bit. Wafulz 04:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Most probably spam. Xdenizen 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

probability-based strategy[edit]

vanispamcruftvertisement Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating both Catalin Barboianu and probability-based strategy for deletion.

Catalin Barboianu is an apparent vanity autobiography [10] written by User:Infarom. Infarom Publishing House is Catalin Barboianu's employer, and publisher of three of Barboianu's books on Poker strategy (and apparently no books other than these three). The article asserts that Barboianu is a notable mathematician, whose major work is probability-based strategy. The ISI WoS lists no peer reviewed publications for "Barboianu C*". The probability-based strategy article "phrase "probability-based strategy" appears only once in the ISI database, and refers to another concept. I can find no evidence that this is a notable mathematical concept. The concepts described in the article appear to refer to the optimization technique known as stochastic programming. In over ten years' experience with stochastic programming, I've never heard of the term "probability-based strategy" used in conjunction with these ideas. The probability-based strategy article claims to refer to game theory concepts, yet none of the material presented has any game theory relevance. In summary, I can find no support for the claims of scientific notability, or evidence that this is anything more than vanity article by an author of books on how to play Texas hold-em. Note: another article by the same author Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philosophy_of_probability. Pete.Hurd 05:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Catalin Barboianu, but ~~Keep~~Delete probability-based strategy. ~~Non-notability of the author is not transferred to what he writes about.~~ -Amarkov ^babble 05:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that probability based strategy is notable? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a valid branch of game theory, but I realize it's already covered in Mathematics of gambling. So delete both. -Amarkov ^babble 15:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both neither are notable. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Barboianu, unless independent sources are found establishing notability. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. (Note that it's not important that the current article isn't about mixed strategies; that doesn't stop it from being a reasonable redirect from the title). --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
procedural comment I'm not sure it's really correct to combine these two AfD's; it's sometimes done for a large group of closely related articles added at the same time, but it does make things more confusing. --Trovatore 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, you are totally correct, I should have made two AfDs. Pete.Hurd 06:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no redirect. Not even the name is notable. —David Eppstein 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no redirect (although the author is weak). The mathematical concept would not be mixed strategy, but elsewhere in game theory; however, the title is a WP:neologism, as far as I can tell. The author may be marginally notable; not as a mathematician, but as a gaming (gambling) author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, no redirect' - vanispamcruftvertisement. Xdenizen 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Pete. --Zvika 08:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, one is self-created about the author (regardless of notability), the other is term invented by the author not used elsewhere, so article is at minimum original research. 2005 08:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:OR, WP:COI, no redirect (the "probability-based strategy" seems to describe the expected value criterion in decision theory rather than a mixed strategy in game theory and as such is not a commonly accepted term). On the author, if "his most important contribution was on decision theory, placing the concept of probability-based strategy onto a firm mathematical foundation" he should be added to the List of reinventors of the wheel. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barboianu (the article, not the person) per WP:BIO. Delete Probability-based strategy per WP:OR or redirect to Expected utility hypothesis. --Lambiam^Talk 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That redirect target appears to be based on the current content of the article. I'm not going to be brokenhearted if the title is not redirected, but please, let's remember that the current content is 100% irrelevant when considering a redirect. The only question is, is it useful, non-confusing, and non-tendentious to have this name redirect to the other name? (Also, there is no requirement that a redirect be notable) --Trovatore 16:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this argument is persuasive, endorse redirect of Probability-based strategy to mixed strategy. Pete.Hurd 16:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't that encourage him to add his cruft to the target of the redirect? I don't think that's an outcome we'd want. —David Eppstein 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand this concern, but 1) the two topics are very different, 2) I watch mixed strategy and 3) I am confident that standard proceedures will work should what you suggest comes to pass. Pete.Hurd 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "notability" a mandatory criterion in wikipedia policy? And, if yes, who establishes the catalogues, papers or directories that give this attribute to a person? It is hilarious that people like Daniel Negreanu - famous gambler (and probably other hundreds of "notabilities") may keep a biographic article on wikipedia, but a mathematician and author working on gambling math is not allowed. He has to reach the notability of a gambler first. Oh, guys... infarom 09:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems to imply that there is a difference in worth between a gambler and a mathematician. But there are notable gamblers and non-notable gamblers, just like there are notable gamblers and notable mathematicians. Rray 14:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established in debates like these. We are fallible people, who must try to determine a person's impact by looking at publicly available databases. If you feel like there is evidence for Barboianu's (your?) notability, please point it out. It appears to me that Negreanu has had a larger influence on professional gamblers than Barboianu has. And, I see little evidence that Barboianu has influenced mathematicians in any way. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have kept both Blaise Pascal and Gerolamo Cardano. Notable work by gambling mathematicians or on the mathematics of gambling has no problem. Septentrionalis 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as advertising and/or vanity. JIP | Talk 11:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - advertising and vanity, per above. Rray 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - advertising and vanity, no proof of authority. Torimadi 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, vanispamcruftisment, no way to make this valid. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs)
Editor's ~~first~~second edit was today, see also Thad Moore (if it hasn't been speedied yet, self professed notable 13 year old mathematician) Pete.Hurd 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Very long-winded, essayish, original-research and unencyclopedia-style articles about some very obvious bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inventoritis[edit]

This looks like nothing but a clever promotion for Atomic Creative and Tatsuya Nakagawa; see AfD talk page for details A. B. 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points for hiding the ad. Delete. --humblefool ® 06:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. +10000000000000000000 points for the Duck Tales mention in the article. --- RockMFR 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, hehehehe. Xdenizen 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clever indeed, but still a promotion. Shimeru 09:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're getting smarter, I'll give 'em that... yandman 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 11:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Only 475 ghits, so it's a non-notable neologism anyway. MER-C 11:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently I prodded it in July as a non-notable neologism and possible v-word. It's longer now, but the same applies. The points made on the talk page are particularly persuasive. Dina 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but possible BJOADN candidate -Toptomcat 15:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appologize for adding additional links to the definition. I have removed the links noted. The word inventoritis has been used loosely in the VC and product marketing community for the last couple of years, but has not been well defined until recently - Product USA.--User:Tnakagawa1

If it's a definition, add it to the Wiktionary. -Toptomcat 01:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that some of the comments focused on being non-notable. What is considered notable? If anyone is interested I can send them a 60pg primer on why the word is important. I look forward to your comments. --User:Tnakagawa1
- See Wikipedia:Notability for our guidelines on this. Also see our guidelines on neologisms and why we don't accept articles on them. And in case it's not crystal clear from reading those, please do not send me the primer. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clever, but no cookie for them. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously a vanity article created by the self-proclaimed inventor of the term. That makes it a Neologism and 'original research' - both of which are grounds for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test too. SteveBaker 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - for now, with most of the basis for keeping being that it's new at the moment. Next time this goes to AfD, it will have to be fully verified and otherwise policy-compliant if it is to be kept. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video game hoaxes[edit]

Delete: This article is unreferenced and can quickly get out of hand if developed. It is about a trivial concept and is not at all encyclopedia-worthy considering all the hoaxes were made up.--Zxcvbnm 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with respective game articles if there is any new referenced content. If not, delete. --- RockMFR 05:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Need I direct you to list of hoaxes? Many articles are unstable, the only reason that it's unreferenced and unfinished is because it's recent and I haven't finished it. I didn't leave the development tag up, because I wanted others to contribute knowing there wouldn't be edit conflicts. This is information that people are interested in - more so than a lot of other lists on Wikipedia. and just because fake hoaxes (fake hoax, seems a bit silly to say huh?) may be posted doesn't mean it's unstable. I will begin to add references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with individual game articles. The list is far too broad. --humblefool ® 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of hoaxes is far more vague. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too trivial and game-specific information, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 11:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's only a week old, give the editor/s time to get it up to scratch. Failing that, merge referenced information to the respective articles. SteveLamacq43 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a week old. Give it some time. CraigMonroe 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well written, well sourced list of this sort is quite useful as a research tool (which is what Wikipedia is mainly used for). Rather than deleting it, we should help the author improve it. →Bobby← 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, this is looking awful indiscriminate because it has no criteria for inclusion. Do we just include everything someone ever made up about a video game? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft, too much trivia for an encyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Currently it's a bit of a mess, I'll grant you, but it's potentially valuable and very early on in its life-cycle. If it still looks like this in a month or three, re-nominate it. -Toptomcat 15:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing from merge/delete - let's give it some time and see how it turns out. --- RockMFR 18:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a very new article. Give it some time. (echoing above) --Fang Aili ^talk 22:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it a chance to develop for a couple of weeks scope_creep 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just like List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming all this article needs is to be scrutinized as content is added. As long as every entry is provided with at least one reference to a reliable sources(no fan forum/website speculation, only notable reliable gaming press), I do not see this article failing WP:V. —Mitaphane _talk 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. But it does need the work done. Robovski 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Trivial gamecruft/listcruft. And these are better described as rumours rather than hoaxes Bwithh 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the "Review in a month's time" approach. This needs sources, but it would be a useful article that will cut down on gamecruft entries in the main hoax listings. -- Simon Cursitor 08:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete SYSS Mouse 01:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Daniel Olsen 07:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunkcafe.com[edit]

Possible spam, unless it's a resource page like Distrowatch.com. Keep or delete? No vote. -WarthogDemon 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, they promote "Scroogle", run by a guy with an agenda against Wikipedia. That's a warning flag, in my mind. --humblefool ® 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was to say sayōnara. Khoi khoi 00:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Zachary R. Smith Library[edit]

Contested prod (by a group of single purpose accounts, as was the creator, but anyway...). Completely unverifiable, no Google hits, WP:COI concerns, and utterly unremarkable. Someone ha a few hundred books and lets other people browse them and take them home for a few weeks. This wiaas great news around 1600, but is quite commonplace nowadays. Main delete reason: WP:V concerns Fram 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 books? I think I own more than that, and I'm no library! Delete, and this might have been speedible as NN. --humblefool ® 06:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly obvious hoax. What I get from the article is that Zachary Smith lets his friends borrow his books and has borrowed books from other people. The recent relocation to "Suite 3" means he has recently moved out of a house (possibly his parents') and into an apartment. JChap2007 06:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - If you buy that it's a library then it's utterly non-notable. If not, then it's a hoax. Either way, a violation of WP:VAIN/WP:COI. --Daniel Olsen 07:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - as per nom. A whole 300? Non notable ~~vanity~~ piece.Xdenizen 07:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. yandman 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect that JChap2007 has described the situation accurately. --Metropolitan90 08:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JChap2007. Got a chuckle out of it, though. Shimeru 09:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete from Orbit as above. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero ghits, thus being unverifiable. MER-C 10:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to verifiability concerns, also does not appear to be provably significant (existence is insufficient). Guy 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the article: "...close to three hundred works of literature..." they forgot to add that someday he plans on filling up the rest of the bookcase too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for being obvious WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no way to verify, is non notable, and is very obviously a candidate for deletion

-ECH3LON 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would this be Dr. Zachary Reluctantstowaway Smith, who costarred in Lost in Space? Edison 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked up the addresses on Google Maps. Both appeared to be residences a short walk from the local University. He moved from one bit of off campus student housing to another. Clearly non notable, vanity cruft. Talk page is filled with unsigned support without any references. Dimitrii 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-verifiable. Kavadi carrier 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious joke. I've had more books STOLEN than he owns. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- priate library not open to public loaning; no claim of notability -- Simon Cursitor 08:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, and probably a hoax article. A BJAODN-worthy candidate! --SunStar Net 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Rockpocket 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Money[edit]

Hypothetical currency reform proposed by a non-notable academic and not found outside his work. Andrew Levine 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Non-notable academic working on obscure and hypothetical subject matter. Xdenizen 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to academia.wikia . yandman 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a noteworthy idea; seems to be confined to just a couple of academics. Shimeru 09:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phonon Maser[edit]

This is being nominated for the same reason as the Boris Volfson article. It lacks any scientific validity or widespread interest. Michaelbusch 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't included in main AfD page by nominator. Done now. --Pjacobi 07:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of scientific validity" is no criterion for deletion - Phlogiston theory and Luminiferous aether lack scientific validity but are perfectly respectable articles. However Original research and lack of verifiability are criteria for deletion. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles you mention are "respectable" because they describe scientific beliefs that were once widely held in the scientific community, but are not now, due to having been proved invalid with time. The article under review here has never been valid, and began with demonstratably invalid physics. So yes, I would say that "lack of scientific validity" is a perfectly good reason to delete. The articles you mention are kept because historical value supersedes scientific validity. In this case it does not.

MergeTo article on Volfson. The editors of Wikipedia absolutely are not the arbiters of scientific validity. An editor claiming that in his expert opinion it won't work is the very definition of Original Research. We only have the right to determine whether or not some person, patent, etc. is notable, based on the presence or absence of citations in mainstream publications. The article includes references showing that a U.S patent was issued for a previous invention, then the patent was written about, in some detail in the following major publications or the online versions thereof: National Geographic News,the British newspaper Telegraph, and the major science journal Nature (print edition.) The above makes a strong case for keeping the articles. In addition there are about 3,000 Google hits, and it was discussed at many websites. It may be pseudoscience, but that is not the criterion for including or deleting an article. Rather than deleting the article with a claim that it lacks "scientific validity," merge this with the previous invention in the article about the inventor and redirect to that article. Edit boldlyin the article the criticisms of the invention in the references, so the article serves the important function of debunking any doubtful claims. Edison 17:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above: widespread interest does not apply even with thousands of Google hits for Phonon Maser. If we exclude valid scientific research about actual phonon masers (that is lasing of phonons), Wikipedia and mirrors thereof, and junk webpages, there are two distinct results, one of which is Volfson's webpage and the other of which is a press release by him. I don't call that widespread interest.

Note on the references: the references to Nature, National Geographic, and the Telegraph only mention the patent as a failing of the patent office, not caring about Volfson personally. This is only one of the thousands of junk patents that are the patent office has passed. It deserves no particular mention, as the patent office's problems are convered in the relevant article. Final thought: we can judge scientific validity when it approaches nonsense, which this article certainly does. Michaelbusch 17:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, now with added {{db-spam}} and {{db-nocontext}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • Some comments show exactly the problem with the american scientific community, apparently no one is keeping up with the work of Dr. Ning Li... I know it's difficult when she is under DOD contract. Check it out, note the similarities. Check out Volfson who has co-authored two "mainstream" physics-heavy patents, both with proven prototypes, and a couple of papers on geophysics. If the US government is paying for similar research, Volfson should at LEAST keep a Wikipedia article. Reactions such as these are EXACTLY why 99% of all Physic research is regurgitation Ricp31 03:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia, Ricp31! --Pjacobi 07:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US government pays for all sorts of physically impossible research, including tantalum and hafnium weapons intended to circumvent nuclear proliferation laws. If articles popped up claiming megaton-yield hafnium weapons were possible, I would expect it in a deletion queue also.

Comment Look what you say might be true, but you should cite the references to back up your position in support of keeping the article. Where can we we find these papers? Which patents? Xdenizen 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment: When I searched for Volfson earlier, I did check the literature. There are zero results for Boris Volfson in the usual electronic indeces. If he has authored geophysics, it doesn't show anywhere, even on his own website, which also fails to mention any other patents. Observation: if everything the US government has paid for were included in Wikipedia, we would be buried in pork. Michaelbusch 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-meta-comment: I'll dig out those links. They are older, He may have been living in Moscow or Israel at the time. When Volfson's Anti-Gravity Spaceship patent came out I thought Tim Ventura did an awesome job of explaining the vehemence of american academia when it comes to any sort of "edgy" research that may cut into grant money. I've tried to always keep my eye on and follow these Russian trained "Cold War" Physicists. Most have ended up in Government programs to never publish again. The training they received is NOT the same Physics training they are giving at Caltech. I dare a US grad student to think outside the box. Ricp31 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of 'american academia', my statements may be distrusted, but I know no reasonably good scientist who hasn't been trained to think 'outside the box', regardless of if it is my professors at Caltech or my collaborators in Europe and Russia. We are also taught to treat every idea as suspect. This training is consistent world-wide, and has been for decades (I have had old Russian physicists explain to me the ways by which they managed to continue working with colleagues here despite the Soviet censors). By the time we finish undergrad, certain filters are applied almost instinctively. I have reviewed Volfson and his ideas in detail. Volfson is not a 'Russian trained 'Cold War' physicist'. He is merely a man who has learned enough of physics to fool himself and a clerk in the patent office. As such he is not exceptional and deserves no special consideration. Michaelbusch 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-meta-meta-comment: Michael, my apologies just noted you are a grad student at CalTech. But if it was 1880, would you delete Tesla's Wikepedia page? I'm not saying Volfson = Tesla, but with so much NOT known on the Quantum level, if someone told me it WAS Gravity Fairies... I'd have to at least listen to their argument. Ricp31 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened, and Volfson is not distinguishable from the four individuals I've had contact me in the last year with outlandish and completely unsupported claims. Tesla is not a fair comparison, considering his many valid achievements. This is not the place for a long discussion, so I will stop here. Michaelbusch 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • See my comments to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boris_Volfson Volfson,boris

Delete Non-notable, not to mention complete bollocks. HEL 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Consensus?[edit]

After six days, I count six votes for delete, two for keep (one of which is Volfson), and one for merge. Admins, is this rough consensus? Michaelbusch 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll wars[edit]

Subject doesn't need a separate article. Flaming (Internet) and Troll (Internet) would be better places to mention the small amount of information presented here. In my view an article on this specific topic can only invite the creation of pointless lists of flame wars and troll activity. Robotman1974 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; you pretty much said all I would have liked to on the matter. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Robotman1974 07:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 07:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. yandman 08:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 08:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shimeru 09:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to being unencyclopedic and unsourced, all it really says is that troll wars are wars between trolls. Gee, I wonder if duck wars are wars between ducks, and bicycle-repairman wars are wars between bicycle repairmen? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's a dangerous line of reasoning to continue. World Wars are not wars between worlds, nor are Revolutionary Wars wars between revolutionaries. The article certainly deserves to be deleted, but not because the name obviously implies the meaning. →Bobby← 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply In WP:CSD, criteria A3 , "Any article consisting only of... a rephrasing of the title." is speediable. I'm not sure if I would have speedied this, but reasons to delete it certainly are abundant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I certainly wouldn't say troll wars are wars between trolls. That would imply physical violence, something that is usually lacking on the Internet... --- RockMFR 15:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and Glasgow Ice Cream Wars are wars between Glasgow ice-creams? ☺ Uncle G 18:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey, why is that a redlink?! </surprise> And redirect this to troll, it is a plausible search term. Kavadi carrier 03:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those sounds tasty to me! Delete. --humblefool ® 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Hello32020 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too short and not enough information, links, sources and is already in more than one article. Let's delete and go home...-ECH3LON 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is very lame and is nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troll Internet as this is a likely search term. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as no reliable sources have been presented that discuss usage of the term (Google searches are not reliable sources). The article can be recreated if such sources are found; the one that is in the article at current time only uses the term and does not discuss it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabocentrism[edit]

Non-notable topic. Google search didn't turn out anything, and I don't think that "Arabocentrism" even exists. MB

Keep or Merge "Arabocentrism" seems to be a neologism, used mostly in a handful of blogs, but "Arab chauvinism" appears to be in wider use [11]. Believe this should either be moved to Arab chauvinism, or possibly merged with Pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism (though those are slightly different concepts). Shimeru 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google books and Amazon "search inside" each find a handful of books that use the term, but per Wikipedia's guideline on neologisms, a neologism isn't ready for an article on WP until there are reliable secondary sources that not only use the term, but actually discuss the term's usage itself. Therefore, this article is not currently notable as a neologism, and also not supported by verifiable and reliable sources. TheronJ 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. MB
Keep, Merge or Move per Shimeru. Could also be merged with Arabization. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because even if this word isn't a neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is little more than a definition. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arabization and "Arabocentrism" are two different concepts. Historically, Arabization was gradual and adopted willingly. The author of the article is purpoting that "Arab ethnic centrism" exists. Arab is not seen as an ethnicity, it's a culture, how can Arabs have ethnic centrism when they're ethnically diverse? MB
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, dictdef, no notable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google turns up more hits with "Arabo-centrism", "arabo-centric"/"arabocentric". If not kept, the info should at least be merged with one of the articles suggested since it's as valid as any other ethnocentrism, like Sinocentrism. Egyegy 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --ManiF 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Arab nationalism or rename to Ethnocentrism in the Arab world. It is an important issue as regards the automatic (and grossly inaccurate) equating of the phrases Middle Eastern or Near Eastern with the Arab world to the exclusion of all other groups. metaspheres 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above.--Tekleni 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything that's not a dicdef here is OR and unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a legitimate topic. Just requires sources.--Eupator 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and valid as others have shown. DragonRouge 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The article does need sources, however. Khoi khoi 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, --Shamir1 04:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Beit Or 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and request expert help. Rockpocket 04:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bassem Feghali[edit]

Bare assertion of notability, very few ghits. Doesn't seem a very notable entertainer. Seraphimblade 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even speedy db-bio? yandman 08:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless I'm missing something here I don't see a mass of notability. Not a speedy candidate, since the assertion is that he pioneered doing something that isn't patently nonsensical (he didn't pioneer eating his own foot, for example). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- db-bio, not db-nonsense. yandman 10:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The constraint on db-bio is, as BigHaz has correctly pointed out, that if the article contains any assertion of notability it must come to AFD, where more than one pair of eyeballs get the chance to do the research to determine whether the subject actually satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. To that end: What research did you do to determine that the WP:BIO criteria are not satisfied by this person, and hence to come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted? Your rationale makes no mention of any research. Uncle G 12:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was that my rationale or Yandman's rationale? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The latter. Uncle G 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither the "MUREX" nor the "Anjar International Festival" are in Wikipedia, and the other "assertions of notability" in this article are more generic praise: "gave a new meaning to...", "legendary singer..." than true assertions. yandman 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not getting it, are you!!!!... First, while Bassem is an exceptional comedian, he is NOT a Legendary singer... He is actually a LOUSY singer who could not sing if his life depended on it. To the Lebanese, the Murex is equivalent to the OSCARS in the U.S. The Anjar Festival is equivalent to Woodstock in the US. Refer to Anjar International Festival The fact that it is not in Wikipedia stems from the fact that people totally ignorant of the Lebanese Culture are badgering people who know the Lebanese culture all too well!... You are doing the BIGGEST disfavor to Wikipedia...Lcnj 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        On the subject of disfavours, you aren't doing your argument any favours by attacking editors instead of citing sources as I previously encouraged you to do below. Sources are your best, and only, arguments. Uncle G 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Checking whether Wikipedia has articles isn't really research. There are lots of subjects still missing from Wikipedia (And, conversely, there are articles in Wikipedia that don't belong.). Research involves looking outside of Wikipedia. Looking at the assertions of notability in the article isn't research, either. The task of AFD is to actually check these things, not to take what the article says purely on trust, and not to ignore what the article may currently omit. Uncle G 10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very limited google hits, but subject has toured internationally. We may want to consider systemic bias.
- hummingbirdcentre
- Cached page from http://www.cedarsusa.com/events/2006/2006.htm Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Even though there's some POV in the choice of words for the article, I think it's notable enough to be kept. Definitely needs reworking though. Gimlei 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable in Lebanon and was also performing abroad (US). (I added some refs to the article) Optimale ^Gu 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - First, there was no assumption of good faith... which is THE CASE here. Second, Bassem Feghali in Lebanon has the legendary status of Bob Hope in the U.S. He is funny as hell and comes from the CORE of Lebanese comedy while introducing to Lebanon female impersonation... something that the Lebanese would have never embraced if it wasn't for the exceptional talent of Feghali. Lebanon is a very small country with very limited resources for internet exposure so you will not find a zillion articles on the net or many hits on google for MANY famous Lebanese. This is why we need to include famous Lebanese celebreties without discrimination. No one in the US would ever dispute the status of Bob Hope in he US or Louis de Funes in France. No one would EVER dispute the status of Bassem Feghali in Lebanon and in many parts of teh Arab world. Unless you are Lebanese or an Arab, you most likely have never heard of Bassem Feghali... just as much as an Arab (not Arab American) most likey has never heard of Bob Hope. The motion to delete Bassem Feghali's page is motivated either by racial discrimination or sheer ignorance of who Bassem Feghali is. Both of them stem from ignorance. Lcnj 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a reason for discarding our discriminatory faculties. It is a reason for articles on such subjects to cite sources. Uncle G 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way was Good Faith not assumed? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please refer to my Bob Hope analogy. I could not have made it more foolproof. The person who has requested deletion is eveidently ignorant of the status of Bassem Feghali as a very notable comedian in Lebanon. While I expect him to be ignorant of Bassem Feghali, I also expect him to assume good faith, as he should, when his knowledge is obviously very limited... and someone who knows a lot more than he will ever know about Lebanon is making a good faith effort to introduce them to Wikipedia. Frankly, such ignorance and OVER-INFLATED egos cause nothing but a waste of valuable time that should be used to introduce more unique content to Lebanon, Lebanese related matters and other unique content the world over Lcnj 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No personal attacks please. The burden is upon the creator of the article to provide sources attesting to Bassem's notability. You'll notice that the template says "that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". yandman 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The creator of the article DID provide whatever limited sources were available!!!!! Also, such burden is extremely LOPSIDED and it is discrimnatory against ethnic minorities (non-Americans) in the world who have limited sources and resources. Assume good faith already!!!... I can ASSURE you that YOU and everyone else on this talk have NO IDEA who "Christophe" is... Yet, I was absolutely delighted to find that someone else had placed a stub with minimal information he or she had. I came and I added what I know... Someone else will come and provide more info and so on and so forth. Enough of this unnecessary badgering for something that should have taken a few minutes!!!!!!!!!!!! Lcnj 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        User blocked 24h for breach of WP:NPA. yandman 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although notability is in question, and sources referenced in the article are slim and non-journalistic, I would err on the side of inclusion. There seems to be some evidence of notability and the article needs a lot of help. --Mattarata 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Gin (2nd nomination)[edit]

This was AfD'd months ago with a consensus to merge into Nineteen Eighty-Four, but no one has done so, and I still feel strongly that there is not enough material to bother. Nineteen Eighty-Four is long enough already, and always on the brink of cruftiness. Victory Gin itself is mentioned only a few times in the novel, and almost nothing is said about it except that it tastes awful. Delete. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. yandman 10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 11:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Victory Gin is in no way a significant enough feature of Nineteen Eighty-Four to qualify for a separate article. As to the assertion that there is a brand of gin bearing this name manufactured or available in the United Kingdom, that would need substantiation and evidence of notability. BTLizard 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, Victory Gin is "a prominent prop in the movie, as in the book". It's mentioned in these book notes. It's commonly enough known in its own right that political commentators use "drinking Victory Gin" as a metaphor, such as here, here, here, and here. This subject should be covered by an encyclopaedia.
That no-one has merged it after a consensus to merge is not a reason to delete it. Firstly, the nominator xyrself could have merged it. Secondly, there is an argument against merger on the article's own talk page, making a case that all of the various "Victory" items — Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes, Victory Coffee, and so forth — are better discussed in a broad scope article on "Victory" items in 1984 (which some have described as "total parallels of freedom fries"), which have been written about by the world at large. Again, that neither the nominator nor anyone else has yet taken it upon themselves to follow that idea through, or even to reply to the suggestion on Talk:Victory Gin even though they've had six months to do so, is not a reason to delete this article.
AFD is not a weapon to force mergers to be done that one wants done, and when renominating it is a good idea to show that one has at least read the suggestions for refactoring that came out of the prior discussion. An administrator hitting the delete button doesn't get us either the aforementioned merger or the aforementioned refactoring. Keep. Uncle G 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If someone had produced the proposed Victory items in 1984, we could merge and redirect there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll comment on this here: I think that Victory items in 1984 would just be a list of non-notable items, all pointless for the same reasons as Victory Gin. And there's nothing in the book that tells you why all these things, from cigarettes to apartment buildings, are called "Victory", so it would be an invitation for original research too. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would only actually be original research, however, if editors went and wrote their own hypotheses and analyses, rather than using the ones that have already been written and published on the subject outside of Wikipedia — several of which I pointed to above. An argument that "there's nothing in the book" ignores the all of the critical commentary that exists. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have things backwards. If this article is deleted, it is impossible to merge it. Whereas merging, or renaming and refactoring, this article to a new, broader scope, article, does not involve deletion at any stage. Any editor with an account has the tools to merge, or to rename and refactor. If your actual wish is to have the article merged, then having an administrator delete the content that you want merged beforehand doesn't help you. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Uncle G, I respectfully disagree. Victory gin is a prop, not a plot or allegory device that is vital to 1984, and I do not see how it merits inclusion here. On the subject of "drinking Victory gin" being well known amongst political commentators, well there are 87 odd ghits for "drinking victory gin", about 4 of these from nn blogs and the rest from 1984 related sites. As for Freedom Fries being derived from Victory Gin, why not just have a note in the Freedom Fries page to state this, rather than a complete article listing the various different types of 'Victory' props in 1984. As for merging, I was kind of swinging that way but the 1984 article is massive enough as it is. I think this is a topic worth mention, but certainly not worth an article. --Amists 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a "topic worth mention", then your view that Nineteen Eighty-Four is "massive enough as it is" should lead you directly to the conclusion that it is time for a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article on the subject. Lo! That is exactly what we already have. If its scope is too narrow (as has been argued on Talk:Victory Gin), then rename and refactor it into an article with larger scope. It doesn't require an administrator to hit the delete button, or administrator privileges, to rename an article and then edit it to broaden its scope. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Uncle G you're right, in that if I think the subject is worth mention on WP then I shouldn't vote that we delete the entire article. My problem is that an expanded article on say 'Victory Props From 1984' would be no more valuable to WP than this article on Victory Gin (for reasons given above - no way is it a subject apart from the book in it's own right). I would support a merge with the main 1984 article, and I may have just done this myself, except the maintainers of this page (Talk:Victory Gin) appear to be against this course of action. In any case I'm changing my vote here to merge. --Amists 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a short rephrasing from the book itself. While the various victory items were clearly plot devices and strong symbols, they were so collectivly, not just the gin. I am sure that anything here can easily be incoorperated into the 1984 book article. If an article on symbols from 1984(Big brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime ect...) entering pop culture is created it would go there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a plot device. But alright then :) --Amists 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in a literal reading. My personal impression was that it was an ever present reminder of the state even when Winston was alone with his lover, but that is just one man's reading. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bookcruft: and anyway the article is not real-world centered. Moreschi 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this. I am a new user, and probably not able to vote, but I am an English scholar, and this and other 'victory items' are important elements to the book. They provide vital clues to how the society is being kept subservient. It would seem a shame to delete this valuable information, and I don't see any compelling argument above to do so. Thank you, Frank.

As you say, they're "important elements to the book", and as such deserve mention in the article on the book. However, they're not important enough to the real world to warrant an article of their own. The compelling argument is that we have to respect certain criteria concerning notability. yandman 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the 1984 article, I see that "victory gin" is mentioned: "the Outer Party's standard of living is very poor. Foodstuffs are low quality or synthetic; the main alcoholic beverage — Victory Gin — is industrial-grade". In my opinion, this sentence gives everything we need to know concerning the drink: It's foul and it's for the outer party. Anything else is superfluous. yandman 08:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - AfD isn't needed for minor facets of obviously encyclopaedic subjects like this, they can simply be redirected to the subject which actually merits an article (i.e. the album article). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give 'Em Hell, Kid[edit]

Provides no information not present on Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, doesn't require its own article Seraphimblade 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I know at the moment the article does not have much, however, I suggest bringing this up to WP:MCR and having them look at it and adding more information. The article was just recently created as well. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ]} 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Calliste Jr.[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable hip hop music producer and occasional performer. Would have prod-ed this, but this genre of music is not my speciality, so bringing it here just to be safe. Few ghits, and a good proportion of those seem to be based off of this page [12] Lankiveil 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I am waiting to be convinced, one way or the other. On the one hand, the article claims MANY notable traits (companies founded, awards won, etc.). On the other hand, it is entirely unreferenced. If no one can come to the defense of the article in question, I would slide toward delete. If we can find some references, I would slide toward keep. --Jayron32 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An awful article full of redlinks, and really doesnt do well to establish the notability of the artist, until I realised he recorded in the 80's as Hashim, a legendary proponent of the 80's electro beatbox genre, whereby hip-hop grew out of electronic music. Hasn't done anything else by the look of it. He's probably still dining out on royalties from 'Al-Naafiysh (The Soul)' (which generates 18500ghits). --Amists 11:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per amists. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and slap a {{sources}} tag on. Kavadi carrier 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up; his work as Hashim was pretty notable within the field. Four albums, charting single,[13] etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, so kept by default. - Yomangani ^talk 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia City[edit]

A verifiable but non-noteable tract of land in Karachi, Pakistan. The Google test presents 219 results, the top two being Wikipedia. The remaining articles are links to real-estate sites, definitions of "Rabia City", lists of bus routes and other local information, or unrelated links. Karachi makes no mention of this neighborhood, and Gulistan-e-Jauhar makes cursory mention of it three times. Aside from being a large residential neighborhood, it appears to have no specific notability. Per WP:LOCAL, this article contains none of the "should have" content, consisting only of "should not have" content. Compare this page to Napier Road, another neighborhood in Karachi, which makes a specific argument for its notability. Consequentially 05:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiably real and I'm sure someone would vote to keep every school in the place, too. Carlossuarez46 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani ^talk 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing of encyclopeidc value. Pehaps mention it at the Karchi article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a populated residential area, I don't see why it is less notable than any of the other place articles. I think instead of deleting the article, a local tag and some time may remedy the situation. If in a few weeks the article is unchanged, I may vote diffently. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you try searching in Urdu? I'd imagine you'd get more results (and more relevant results) than searching in English. Andrew Levine 17:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does anyone out there know Urdu? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Andrew Levine 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, that is a good thing to know. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really hard to say with this one. If this is a place (or will be a place) where residents/businesses cite as their address - i.e. (in Arabic, of course) 123 Karachi St, Rabia City, Karachi, Pakistan - then I'd say keep. But right now, I'm not sure if it even fits that criteria. --Oakshade 03:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place, verifiable and populated; it may even have lots of (notable?) schools in it (schoolaholics take note). Carlossuarez46 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Schools, and by this rumor [14], another thing. --Oakshade 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gulistan-e-Jauhar. It seems to be a project by some builder, not notable enough to deserve a separate article. utcursch | talk 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree that an article about a neighborhood should be kept only if the name is used in postal addresses. As HighInBC points out, we have other such articles (e.g., Turtle Bay, Manhattan). JamesMLane t c 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an Advetisement to me. Either delet or merge as per User:Utcursch. --Marwatt 17:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dlohcierekim. Todd661 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible Experience[edit]

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my view the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria, and article reads like an advert. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, not notable and reads like an advertisement. Xdenizen 11:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an advert --Amists 11:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite The stars in the thing make it notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. WMMartin 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable advertisement. Hello32020 14:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement, Wikipedia is not your advertising company, approach Clear Channel, if you want to advertise. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite, barely, showing notability with newspaper mentions, this is clearly advertising. Perhaps someone may recreate it in a neutral way, but even then notabiliy is shaky. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a brand new product. We don't even know if it will have staying power over the years. Not every celebrity collaboration ends up having a lasting impact. This one might not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The news items don't carry this product over the threshhold of notability for me at all. Could be just a small "flash in the pan." And the article is an advertisment, which is a no-no. OfficeGirl 18:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voden inscription[edit]

Unsourced nonsense based on nationalistic sites such as: [15] [16] •NikoSilver• 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be a hoax, see the 92 ghits. Also not verifiable since most ghits are emails or usenet posts. MER-C 11:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep (and cleanup) if verification at least from reliable press sources can be found while this AfD is running. By verification, I mean verifying that it exists and that it was analysed by experts. If it's a forgery, it's still an interesting one and may deserve an article. Fut.Perf. ☼
- Comment I will withdraw nomination when such sources are included, and when the forgery issue becomes clear in the text. In fact, if these two conditions are met, and someone else tries to AfD this, I'll vote 'strong keep'. •NikoSilver• 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable per Future perfect and Wikipeida is not a soapbox. If verfication of actual existence, keep without propaganda-esque language and tone. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite as notable Belgian nationalist hoax. :-) -Toptomcat 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an interesting article. I couldn't tell from the article why it might be considered a hoax.--Mike 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask people to reconsider their votes. I don't think there's been a single archaeological find that someone hasn't considered a fake. Moreover some notable fakes are in themselves very important because they are very good indicators of cultural values such as the jesus box (the osary of the brother of jesus I think).

I spend a lot of time looking at inscriptions that may or may not be fakes and if all of them got deleted I'd have nothing to work on! I think this web site gives the other side of the coin:[17] without a great deal of research I can't verify whether the actual item is genuine, but what is very clear is that an object exists and that this is a real subject. Clearly it must be reported in a neutral way - and that is a real concern with the article (especially given recent posts) but not a reason (as yet to delete)--Mike 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without verification this could damage wikipedia's reputation, that is why we require verification. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an inscription called the "voden inscription" (there's a picture)? If there is whether or not it is genuine, the next question is whether it is notable, if it has articles written about it then it prossibly is.

The Wiki-article is not a hoax, the inscription may be, but the Wiki-article isn't!
It isn't unverifiable - there's a picture, the wiki-article is verificable, it is the item that is difficult to verify and as far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't have the power to delete it! (See WP:GOD)
So long as the article properly tags that some consider it a fake, it will not damage Wikipedia's reputation.

The only rational I can see for deleting is that it is not notable enough - and the only comment on that seems to say it is!--Mike 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will find Wikipedia:Verifiability pertenent to this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found just one press clipping online that seems to verify that this item exists and was taken to Greece over objections from the Bulgarian curator of a museum, but no information about the allegations of forgery, claims of historical significance, etc. Since the most recent events regarding this item happened in 1997, someone may have to go to the library to find good sources. It appears that most of the websites that mention this item for nationalistic purposes have relied on very sketchy sources and when you follow their references you find only a couple of tripod pages which no longer exist. None of them seem to have actually seen the two newspaper articles which they mention in their websites. Also I see a red flag when the creator of this article claims to have made the photograph provided with the article. Really? Who is this person who claims to have personally been present with the item in question, which has been kept under lock and key by government authorities for nine years? I don't even feel confident that "Voden inscription" is the appropriate name for this item, so I can't even support the idea of making this a stub. Ecyclopedic content must be verifiable. This is not. Delete per HighInBC OfficeGirl 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ undoubtelly item exists, regarding it's authenticity seek opinion from experts having nutreal point of view excluding state archaelogists-inscriptionists from Greece, Bulgaria (as Dr Bozhidar Dimitrov) and Republic of Macedonia.If genuine reveals unkown historical facts of great impact in Balkan history as: 1)Tsar Samuel was crowned by pope Gregory V before 989 A.D.and not in 997 after Tsar Roman of Bulgaria's death, as Dr. Dimitrov holds, 2) His official title was Tsar of Bulgars and Romans, 3)In 10th c. Byzantine capital was considered residence of Great Evil (Satan), 4)Samuel's state was extending from Serbia to whole Greece,5)On 989 AD Voden, present day Edessa, was the Bulgarian capital, 6)Verifies Bogomils movement participation in Samuel's Empire via dark historic figures as Jeremiah from Melnik probably founder of Bogomilism and Gabriel the Bulgarian bishop of Moglen or Muglen province and ,7)Reveals that Tarnovo is Samuel's birthplace, 8)Confirms 18th c. sources that Samuel's father was Shishman Han of Tarnovo (present day Great Tarnovo) and 9)Clarifies Bulgarian character of Samuel's state. Compare Bitola inscription. Old Slavonic inscriptions of 10th - 12th c. are extremely rare, fewer than 10. Bost 09.33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.58.248 (talk • contribs) 07:35, November 8, 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless/until authenticity confirmed (at least to over 50%) and material similar to Bost's is included to allow non-experts to know why this inscription is so critical. --- Simon Cursitor 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ until Greek authorities release confiscated inscription free to publicity for authenticity test performed by indepedent foreign experts.Why Greek ministry of culture keep it in secrecy for nine years? It's obvious that some guys in Balkans favour the hoax aspect for ever avoiding archaelogical confirmation.Tamin 22.41, November,8 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.11.51 (talk • contribs) 22:00, November 8, 2006 (UTC) - who also corrected the comment of "Bost" above [18]

- Comment: Unsigned votes above are obviously related. Also, the main contributor of the article appears under the name User:Kaltsef which directly relates to the name in the e-mail address of the author of such sites (click 'submit your e-mail' below)! One more IP (87.202.166.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making alterations to the two stricken votes ([19],[20]). And another one: 87.203.84.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([21]) •NikoSilver• 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Blocked the 87.202 address for vote-tampering here and for an unrelated 3RR offense. Any more IPs of those ranges turning up here with similar edits during the next 24 hours should be reverted on sight and reported. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the argument is potentially interesting as that of a 19th century forgery, unfortunately no decent source appears to treat the subject, judging by the search I made on the web.--Aldux 13:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable hoax. I couldn't find much references about it, but I couldn't for Bitola inscription either. It appears that texts about various inscriptions aren't too popular on the Internet, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Nikola 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep strongly~~ -Inscription's striking importance caused the forgery theory propagated by a Bulgarian historian who never saw this item. Who else can persuasivelly align to this? No one until Greek authorities deliver this incarcerated item free to international academic community for authentification. Every inscription is considered primary source of history and prevail to posterior ones-- ~~Bost~~ 08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.116.222 (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; although a case for merge and redirect was presented, it failed to gather concensus during this AfD discussion. If anyone feels the merge and redirect option requires more discussion, please use the articles' talk page. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out of Jail Free card[edit]

A card in the game of Monopoly. OK, so maybe it is mainstream enough to be a metephorical idiom in English, but I don't think that is enough. I was going to redirect it to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture or even to Monopoly (game), but thought the best way to deal with it was having it deleted.

Keep It's in the pop culture enough to be used in movies from time to time. It is something someone might actually look for in an encyclopedia. Not paper Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is one of the few times I would actually invoke "WP is not paper". This is certainly not a topic any normal encyclopedia would cover, but I think the phrase and penetrated the English lexicon enough to be notable in and of itself. (Sidebar: Though I generally dislike Monopoly, I have two t-shirts which are orange and yellow, one stating "Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" and the other stating "Get out of jail free- this shirt may be kept until needed, or sold".) -- Kicking222 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in the pop culture enough to be used in movies from time to time. It is something someone might actually look for in an encyclopedia. Not paper(I agrred with the above rational so I stole it :0) )CraigMonroe 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ok, I release my work under GFDL. LOL. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tonywalton | Talk 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Merge as below. I dodn't know there was a "References to the board game" etc. article. Tonywalton | Talk 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or merge to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture; I am not sure how the article can actually be expanded. - Mike Rosoft 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture. Not substantial enough for its own article, but the metaphor is widespread and it doesn't do any harm to put the redirect in. WMMartin 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike Rosoft. -Toptomcat 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Gimlei 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect This is too small of a topic for it's own article, a section in the Monopoly article or the References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture article will do for most of it, and the trivia section for the rest. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WMMartin. As a metaphor this is something that is pop culture and should be retained. Get out of Jail Free should really have it's own section at References to the board game Monopoly in popular culture. If it gets too big it could always be forked back to this namespace.--Isotope23 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Isotope23. FreplySpang 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WMMartin. Danny Lilithborne 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike et al. TJ Spyke 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- certainly a widely-used idiom in UK; granted only since the game was created, but then again "Dalek" and "Vulcan" are idioms no-one would object to recording: they mean more than their words say. -- Simon Cursitor 08:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strong don't merge. Easily worth enough to have its own separate article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlohcierekim --mcpusc 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough on its own. --- RockMFR 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dlohcierekim. Definitely needs expansion, though, for general use in pop culture. Chubbles1212 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dlohcierekim and Kicking 222. It is notable, and certainly deserve its own page; at the point where the phrase is being cited in popular culture (and I'm certain I've heard it in a movie or two; just don't remember which) it deserves even a token entry. Speaking of which, it most certainly needs expansion. Ourai ^т _с 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Trump[edit]

According to this [22] he is just a student and as it was said in the previous deletion procedure, being the son of somebody notable isn't an assertion of notability of the person himself Optimale ^Gu 13:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the superbly well-made point about notability mentioned by Optimale (declaration of interest: OK, I admit it, I originally speedy tagged it with that comment in the edit summary) Tonywalton | Talk 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per insightful, well made points above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no assertion of notability (except being the son of a notable person). Hello32020 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, badly written. Delete, at least for now. (If somebody can actually establish his notability, I am willing to change my mind.) - Mike Rosoft 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's not copied from Donald Trump, Jr. is made up by the creator. Google for "Eric Trump" Lithuania for instance, brings up 0 hits. Kavadi carrier 16:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump. T Rex | talk 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Though Optimale has a good point, and we could sit here all night talking about this but i would like to be given a chance to clean up and rewrite the article. if you do not like it then you can go ahead with deletion please let me have one chance to clean it up.--Andrew Chung 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clean up won't fix a lack of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Why are we here? Db-repost? Or is content now different? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to donald trump like t rex suggested Yuckfoo 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, upon review, this is an exact repost of the deleted version, without the trivia section. There's nothing new here, so it falls under G4. --Core des at 06:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: deleted and redirected to Joshua, per WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahushua[edit]

I don't know what this article is supposed to be about, but it seems to be a duplicate of Joshua, Yeshua, Yeshu, and/or Jesus. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy? and I quote, "YAHUSHUA article at Wikipedia: BLOTTED-OUT! (As of 9-25-2006)" The article also mentions having been redireced. This reads like OR or something made up in school one day. It is not referenced Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the "blotted out" comment refers to its redirection to Yeshua. - Mike Rosoft 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a good point. How about just reverting it to Jofrst's edit. Tonywalton | Talk 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be saying "this is an alternative spelling of Joshua, Yeshua, etc and I want it to have a standalone article rather than a redirect and if it isn't I'm going to scream and scream until I'm sick" (that's how I read "If other people can post their variations of the name and not have theirs "blotted" out, than this version has the right to stay as well.", anyway). Tough. Redirect to Joshua unless the author can provide any verifiable evidence that Yahushua (as opposed to Joshua, etc) is anything more substantive than Yet Another Way Of Transliterating From Hebrew To Latin Characters. Tonywalton | Talk 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a badly written gibbering wreck of an article! Completely POV (Just look at the opening). Not sure why we are going to AfD, since the guy who removed the speedy and added an AfD (I think) seems to be pushing for delete anyway! The Kinslayer 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria. - Mike Rosoft 14:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've had articles speedily deleted for WP:Complete bollocks before. Without sources, and with it's serious POV issue, this article certainly qualifies as that as far as I'm concerned! Not a big deal anyway, I just wanted to know for future reference. The Kinslayer 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Oddly enough, Being Complete Bollocks isn't in and of itself a SD criterion, per WP:CSD. Complete Bollocks might qualify as WP:CSD#G3, but I'm inclined to believe that this just about qualifies as Patent nonsense of the second kind: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. Tonywalton | Talk 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's exactly what I feel about this article. I guess I just used the wrong term to refer to it. I know Complete bollocks isn't an actual SD criteria, but I have put it as a reason for an SD before and had it upheld, and I honestly didn't think anyone was going to object to THIS article being deleted! The Kinslayer 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should have been more specific. Speedy as a repost? Or can we just redirect and have done with it? On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent it being reverted to its present state. Perhaps speedy and protect against recreation? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - why is this even up for AFD? This is simply a case of petulant vandalism which can be reverted. -- Whpq 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and close per Whpq. Kavadi carrier 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect and close as per User:Whpq Xdenizen 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. Fram 15:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosenberg[edit]

non-notable academic Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The top-level Tina Rosenberg should be about the Pulitzer Prize winner and not an academic accused of plagiarism. Thus, I've rewritten the article, and perhaps if an article is going to be written about the person this AfD was originally about, it can be done with better sourcing and at a disambiguated point. Suggest withdrawal at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the prize winner Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the changed version Optimale ^Gu 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that it has been rewritten. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, withdrawing my nomination per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the AfD rationale no longer applies to the article. Tonywalton | Talk 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nephlet[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Prod tag removed by anon editor. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delte per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Hello32020 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article even admits it's a protologism created last year by some kid. Pitiful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian Socialist Party[edit]

Utterly non-notable, if not a hoax or joke. No GHits outside Wikipedia and clones, no sources, no evidence that there is more than one "member" of this "party", who happens to be the article's only contributor. Prod replaced with a message asking people to join the "newly created Egalitarian Socialist Party". Violates WP:ORG, WP:V and WP:NFT, probably among others. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That fails to meet {{db-club}} only because a club generally consists of more than one member. Fails all three of the soapbox criteria et al. Delete, perhaps speedily. Tonywalton | Talk 14:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Egalitarian Party" gets 96 unique giigle hits. Newly founded party. Not a soapbox for every every newly formed political party. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD A7. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per above. shotwell 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom QuiteUnusual 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and article is POV. Xdenizen 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 (Talk) 07:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hatfield[edit]

NN, self promotion, Google gives 1 result for "Kevin Hatfield"+DDOS, 0 results for "Kevin Hatfield" DOS-Eliminate Optimale ^Gu 14:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. In the event that the article stays, I'm going to go through and change the external links to Wikipedia to the standard internal links. →Bobby← 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - When I was fixing the links, I noticed that the page's author Khatfield (hmmm) deleted a speedy tag. This doesn't speak well (in my mind) for the article's intentions. →Bobby← 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Perhaps we could userfy to User:Khatfield. Not speediable-- there was an assertion of significance.
- 19 unique/156 google hits for "DOS-Eliminate".
- 278 unique out of 17,300 google hits for "Kevin Hatfield" -md. (eliminating the physician)
- 87 unique/5,910 google hits for ECSPortal.Com+ Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Not notable, COI and fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. Xdenizen 20:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search for 'Kevin Hatfield Green Dragon' http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kevin+hatfield+green+dragon&btnG=Google+Search

Returns 64,000 Hits

Delete Fails WP:BIO and presumably WP:AUTO. Caknuck 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Khatfield made the comment preceding mine, then went and blanked the article. Caknuck 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD, bio. 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Swab Hudson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Seems to have slipped past new page patrollers, otherwise it's pretty much a speedy. Various vandalistic additions in the 3 days since it's been online. riana_dzasta 14:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vanity. Here are the ghits, (all 13 of them) for anyone interested. It's quite an amusing article though, sounds like a maddox fan. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and tagged as such for A7 (the asserted notability is obviously false bravado). I've also removed a slight copy-vio regarding the popular Chuch Norris jokes. →Bobby← 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.A.L.-E.. Continuing arguments for deletion following each 'source' indicate that we aren't ready to have an article on this yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall-E (film)[edit]

This film has not been officially announced. The only information about the film has appeared as rumor on blogs, with each mention all referencing the other blogs that talk about the rumor. This is similar to when the W.A.L.-E. entry was removed for lack of anything factual to support the page. SpikeJones 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was announced by Pixar. This is a stub: keep it or else we'll have to start all over again with more information one day. Wiki-newbie 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As requested a number of times, please provide the Pixar announcement information (not blog postings) that lists director, cast, plot, release date, etc information. SpikeJones 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comingsoon.net says Later that same summer, the mysterious new animated Pixar film, Wall-E, comes to theaters on June 27., that is it other than some blog references. Start all over again? There is nothing in the article to start over. Nothing is known about the movie or than, It is romoured to be about a robot., delete per not a crystall ball. Once more info is available I would support this article of course. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Less than 2 years away. I would have voted to delete if the film's release were 5 years in the future. Georgia guy 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte unless something verifiable comes along. A copy of the Pixar announcement, not just romors, would be nice. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The comingsoon.net external link appears to reveal that Disney has announced the actual release date, which means it isn't just a rumor. Georgia guy 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And the mention of a release date doesn't mean the film is official. The name of the film has been rumored to be W.A.L.-E. previously as well (with THAT WK page being deleted for the same WP:NOT reason). Could it be a placeholder for some other unannounced film, or it could have been a mistake, or it could actually be for a new Pixar film. Since there is conflicting information being posted in blogs (Stanton directing? Maybe not), and a release date by itself doesn't mean anything -- we go back to asking for other verifiable information from an official source that would move this from WP:NOT to something factual and supportable. SpikeJones 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The W.A.L.-E article has been recreated as "W.A.L.-E.," (with an extra period) and it is about this same film (this article is also up for deletion [23]). Wavy G 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nexis has zero hits for "Wall-E and Pixar" Uucp 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete I have seen no official announcement by Pixar, let alone Disney- and it was my understanding anyway that Pixar announced their own films, not Disney. And the supposed copy of the announcement is a poorly and confusingly worded one, at best.

I can't believe all this information about this rumoured film was added when NOTHING has been announced! And might I also suggest that the Wall-E link in the Pixar movies/short films template (on the bottom of every Pixar film's page) be removed until an official announcement is made. --211.26.115.34 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cinescape (now "Mania") has also received word from Disney about the release date (http://www.mania.com/52676.html). I imagine plot information will be announced soon. --Psiphiorg 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GENERAL NOTE. I'm contacting the Walt Disney Co. about a confirmation of the existence of Wall-E. To answer the question why we haven't heard something direct from the Walt Disney Co. in public: the press site of Buena Vista Pictures is closed to only (you can guess what comes next): press! Sigh, some people.. – (empoor) 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found an additional site declaring Wall-E's release date. I've added it to Wall-E's reference page, and you can view it here and decide if it's worthwhile. RMS Oceanic 08:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. I propose we wait and see if empoor has any success with his investigations before deleting this article. RMS Oceanic 17:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just get an SQL error when I go there, must be having trouble. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the URL; the "A" at the end was apparently a typo. The page announces not only the release date, but also the director and a one-word premise ("robots"). --Psiphiorg 06:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the corrected URL (minus the "A"), the Animation World site still doesn't provide *any* information that wasn't already listed on other blog listings, and the Stanton as director item is already being discussed about whether or not its true. While submitted as helpful, it still doesn't supply any official facts surrounding Wall-E that we've been discussing here to the point where the article should be kept.SpikeJones 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlike Rapunzel (film) and others, there is absolutely no official information available about this film. We don't even have an official working title. Wikipedia is not required to contain up-to-the-nanosecond information on everything at the expense of accuracy. Powers ^T 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball and tea leaves per LtPowers, Terence Ong et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect it if you like. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Malta[edit]

Nomination for deletion - subject of article is non-notable, appears to be purely a discussion board frequented by far-right activists in Malta. Worthy of a mention in the Imperium Europa article, but no need for a separate stub article. --SandyDancer 14:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Malta. 308 unique google hits out of 695 Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply a discussion board for a tiny community. No redirect to Malta please! They have nothing to do with each other! A redirect to Imperium Europa would not be out of place. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Can't see why redirecting to Malta would be useful - I think the page should simply be deleted. In fact I am not entirely sure we should be linking to this forum in the Imperium Europa page - Wikipedia isn't a web directory. --SandyDancer 21:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to nominate this for deletion myself. I agree with VodkaJazz in that it should redirect to Imperium Europa, that is, if someone types "Viva Malta", it should take him to the Imperium Europa page. Marcus1234 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

typical of wiki, a total joke. vm does not need any damn links from wiki. we have enough hits and don't need any from here. we are one of maltas top sites. i added an article on vm to stop the inevitable slander fest that occurs on this site before it inevitably spreads further. anyone with a difference of opinion is not allowed to express it here as it is simply a haven for liberal leftists. this as usual is an unjustified attack on right wing sites just as slander of Norman Lowell is allowed.

i will be posting an article on this matter on the vm front pages and maybe spreading it to other news sites too.

vm and ie are two different movements. IE is directed towards europe and vm towards malta. we do however discuss converging views. IE is a static site whereas vm is a dynamic news one. just because there is a link to vm in the IE article is irrelevant. one would not call the European peoples party and the British conservative party as the same thing. same applies to IE and VM.

this is censorship at the end of the day and you all know it. slander is allowed on the ie and Norman Lowell articles but a balanced account with full citations on vm is not what this community wants.

PS. above it is written that this is a debate. what debate? a few people all agreed to delete vm and it was. no opposition was allowed!

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of Broadcast lists[edit]

List_of_DirecTV_channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of XM Satellite Radio channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CW affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of MyNetworkTV affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dish Network channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CBS affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of NBC affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ABC affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Fox affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information -- specifically a directory or a TV/Radio Guide (these articles are one, or both) -- despite the level of utility of the articles, they are not within the guidelines of what should be included in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Articles are all grouped together due to content and style. If not a "guide", then definitely a simple directory -- either way, violates inclusion policy. /Blaxthos 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - As an aside (and for full disclosure), List of MyNetworkTV affiliates was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006, with a result of Speedy Keep

Keep - I would argue that the articles in question are not indiscriminate directories in that they only provide a list of what networks, content, or stations are included (not unlike List of newspapers or List of television stations in North America by media market; or outside of the media arena with entries like List of airlines or List of auxiliary Interstate Highways). This information initially was contained within the DirecTV article, and was broken out once it was realized how unwieldy the information is within the bounds of that single article. If this article was a full-fledged TV guide, I would agree with you completely, but given that this is completely outside of that realm, and more of an encyclopaedic list of what is included within the service, I have to strongly disagree with you, in that they do not violate WP:NOT. --Mhking 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It certainly is not a guide, but rather a list. I see nothing wrong with it being there, and don't think it violates WP:NOT in any way. If we delete this, we have to consider a lot of lists to be guides, and remove them as well. Gimlei 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are nominated due to being a directory, which is clearly defined as what wikipedia is not. /Blaxthos 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're usefull articles. --Caldorwards4 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean useful or did you mean to vote delete? Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meant useful. Wrote useless on accident.--Caldorwards4 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep network affiliate and satellite radio lists Complete and maintainable lists of notable stations and channels under logical groupings (network affiliation). I'm not so sure about the list of D*/E* channels since with only a few exceptions, they have every major channel available in the USA, and is probably a big duplication of some article I'm too much in a hurry to look up right now. Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefull. not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful lists, encyclopedic. If you want these to go, then all lists of such types have to be sent to AFD as well. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they're useful for new users. --User:Phpcoder 3:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep, they're useful. I left a comment on Talk:List of DirecTV channels#Why does it exist? about my thoughts. --myselfalso 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful information of interest to millions of people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these aren't directories, it's actual content. --Bill.matthews 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per obvious utility. These lists do not fit into the directories prohibition in WP:NOT, they're not loosely-related, they're not a means for business, they are not program listings (ie TV Guide). hateless 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all. DCEdwards1966 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially as per Hateless. To my mind these particular lists do not meet the criteria in WP:NOT. --Matthew Humphreys 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - "Wikipedia is not censored against something you one day dislike.". MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all. They are clear violations of WP:NOT and specifically unencyclopedic directories. On another note, to all the editors who wish to keep these lists because other similar one's exist, please note that as I find those other directories, I will AfD. WP:NOT clearly forbids these sort of articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not trying to be difficult, but why are people using reasoning such as "well, if we delete X then we'll have to delete all these other articles too" ? Regardless of an article's usefullness, or how many other articles violate the same policy, if it violates a policy, it needs to go. "But Johnny did it too" never worked when trying to justify my actions to my mom... why is wikipedia any different? Wikipedia seems full of reasons for why it's okay to break policy on a per-case basis, but doesn't this trump the purpose of having a policy at all? Just because it's useful, or because it's done in other places, doesn't negate the issue at hand... or so I think. ;-) /Blaxthos 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It is an all too common argument nowadays. Justifying bad behavior (or in this case articles) by pointing to other bad behavior. It's childish, and illogical. It also paralyzes progress because at the end of the day, nothing can get done because there is always something or someone else mimicking the improper behavior. You have my full support on this AfD as it appears that these articles are flagrantly in violation of WP:NOT, not to mention the question of the notability of the articles as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, if you're going to apply the decision to one article, then you should apply them to all articles. This is not childish nor illogical. Believe me, look at the chaos of what happened at WP:SRNC. Article standards were scattered because there was no cohesive policy across WP:USRD, and hence there was complete chaos. The arguments over this even fall under WP:LAME. That's why I cited these other articles. I was pointing out that these other articles exist because of their usefullness related to the companies that make the product. DirecTV has a programming guide Wikipedia provides. This is not a TV Guide listing, this is simply a list of channels that the programmer has available through their sources. The same for XM, Sirius, and Dish. CBS, NBC, MNTV, CW, ABC, Fox, etc., made monetary deals with their affiliates. I've used those articles before in order to do research for my own purposes; hence the reason why I became involved in editing those pages. So, that was my point of bringing up those articles. More so, there is a such thing as WP:CCC. Consensus can change. Hence, policy can change. --myselfalso 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point. It is childish because seeking to have one bad article stand out becaust there are five other bad articles is what a child does to stop a punishment from coming down. As said above, "Well Johnny did it too". It is illogical because, using the argument prevents anything from being done, since the argument can be recycled each time one attempts to solve a problem. In other words leaving six problems, when we can possibly deal with all problems if we did it one at a time, analyzing each on their own merits.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. None of these lists are used as a promotional tool and all give information as to what/where it is offered. No one is told to buy either satellite radio, satellite television or watch such network affiliate.TravKoolBreeze Key author in List of XM Satellite Radio channels 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You have totally misrepresented the section of WP:NOT to make your point. It explicitly states: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." These articles clearly violate WP:NOT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)

Do you see any of these list as a resource for conducting business? None of these list are being used to promote, but are used for quick refrence information inwhich even the parent may not update on their website.TravKoolBreeze 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No where in the nomination is this brought up as an issue. The sentence you are using is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is claiming that the articles are serving as an advertisement. The nomination is based on the fact that Wikipedia does not allow TV or Radio guides, directories and/or schedules, which IMO is what these articles are.

Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. This what it explicitly meant in what Wikipedia is not for Directories. Thus without reading this, the whole discussion which these articles should exist would make no sense. TV/Radio Guide would be if any of the list are updated daily to show what is on and a directory is a list of contacts, i.e. phone numbers, email. None of these list do either, and all the list give information about said channel or affliate. TravKoolBreeze 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A pertinent quote from the Wikipedia is not a directory section of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." (Emphasis mine) --Matthew Humphreys 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the best argument presented for keep. I don't view these articles as reference table, however reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps there should be some clarification on whether these articles fit into this exception on the WP:NOT page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think "TV/Radio Guides" may be misinterpreted by those in favor of deletion. A TV guide lists upcoming programming, which isn't the case here. The mention of "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules" seems to back this up - these articles don't contain any of these. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've requested a clarification from the WP:NOT page on this issue. I don't see how these articles aren't directories, but I think since this is a policy question, if that issue can be clarified, it will really help this discussion. At least we moved on from, "well they're other articles like this one". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Looking at a couple dictionaries, "directory" is defined as a list that includes phone numbers, addresses, and similar info. Without that information, I don't see how it would be considered a directory. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that WP:NOT prevents an article on a talk radio station listing the names of its programs. To me, that is what these articles, which list stations and their corresponding channels does. It fall under the similar info, as a channel can be defined as a networks address on the service provider. That being said, if I get a clarification on the policy page, I will gladly change my vote. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. A schedule of programs wouldn't be allowed (and looking now, there seem to be a number of TV and radio pages that have schedules), but listing some or all programs doesn't seem to be prohibited by NOT, and there seem to be quite a few pages that do exactly that. What part of NOT would indicate that an article about a network couldn't list shows on that network? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't use the word "schedule" but that was what I was talking about. Isn't a schedule a list of programs with times? To me a list of networks with corresponding channels is the same thing. Reasonable people can differ. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A consensus was reached on August 24, 2005 to keep about the List of XM Satellite Radio Channels in which same argument about whether or not the article was a directory. TravKoolBreeze 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on that article were due to notability, and didn't address the "reference table" vs. "directory" issue although directory was on of the factors in its nomination. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong & Speedy Keep All: Not an advertisement, and provides important lists as to which channels in every market are affiliated with the networks listed. Has been worked on for months by many editors without any objection. Nate 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per everything mentioned above. --- RockMFR 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All valid information, and not indiscriminate lists like some others. Plus, these lists will be changed to reflect Nielsen markets soon enough. Thisthema n 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this information violates some policy, I'd say it was the policy that was flawed, not the information itself. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' A lot of people worked on those articles, why delete? How is it hindering or somehow hurting Wikipedia? If you were to look up DirecTv in an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be nice to see which channels it carries too? If not, then you might as well delete the DirecTv article and all tv station articles along with it. Rewt241
Comment -- Obviously there is massive community support to keep the articles. If my reading of the policy was incorrect (as it appears to have been), their nomination was only in good faith. The debate was educational for me, if nothing else. :-) /Blaxthos 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (My comment is specific to DirecTV and XM as I am only familiar with those, so forgive me if this is too much of a generalization for the others.) These articles do not qualify as a "TV/radio guide" in that they do not list a programming schedule. Instead, they are tables of current channels, programming, and formats, as well as historical data not readily found elsewhere in such detail--including from the content provider. It would be a disservice to those who have researched and edited these articles as well as the community as a whole to remove such information. TopCat99 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only should these very useful lists be kept - I'd like to see more of them (for example, lists of CBS etc radio affiliates). PaulLev 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Patcat88 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep all. This is just trolling and vandalism via deleting proper encyclopedic articles. this is NOT Deletapedia. It's nonsense. Next, shall we nominate Main Page and List of NBC affiliates for deletion? This guy seems to not like lists of any kind. :) RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should have every article— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.132.11 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 12 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cockadoodi Car[edit]

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

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

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

Non notable "catchphrase" (title of article), rest is original research and/or not directly related to the catchphrase, but to the movie. COntested prod, some elements improved, but main problem stays. WP:OR, non notable, the phrase seems not to be discussed (annalyzed, remarked, ...) anywhere. Fram 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cockadoodi Car" was a phrase frequently used by the psychotic protagonist of the Stephen King novel, Misery. No it wasn't. Per the article it was used once; Annie Wilkes frequently used "cockadoodie" (thus spelt) as a general term of abuse, as I recall. Delete as OR and flawed at that. Tonywalton | Talk 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Misery. Having the re-direct to the article on the book may disuade people from re-creating it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that there should be a redir. "Cockadoodie car" is used approximately once in the whole book/film and has no defining effect on either plot or characterisation (pace an analysis of Wilkes' repressed vocabulary and any connection between her general repression and her psychosis). As such a redirect would be akin to redirecting the phrase "Good-bye, my dear fellow" to War and Peace because Tolstoy has one of his characters say it on page 445. Tonywalton | Talk 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, mabye merge a short summery. This is a once used term in a notable book, unless any demonstration that the phrase has entered popular culture I don't see the notability of it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. I agree with the views of User:Tonywalton regarding a redirect. Xdenizen 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Annie Wilkes' imperious attitude towards literature has had an effect on all of you. She insisted Sheldon burn the manuscript she detested, and now you are all crying to "burn" this article. There is also a parallel with Mrs White in Stephen King's Carrie insisting that her daughter "burn the dress" lol. 80.43.24.255 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC) — 80.43.24.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Hehe, good one. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything worth saying about this already exists in the Annie Wilkes article. Shimeru 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE What is the matter with you people? Have you had too much 'bitchly cow corn'? Never have I experienced so much outrage on such a simple article. Merely published to highlight some of the better scenes, as a fan of the movie, I would have thought there would be some degree of appreciation for my efforts. Whereas many internet users have complimented me on such a moving and interesting article, it was inevitable a minority of miserable readers would complain. Frankly, what would Annie Wilkes say? something along the lines of "What is the matter with you people?"...I suspect. For clearly making an 'oogie mess' of her legacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs) November 8, 2006

You are mistaken in thinking this is personal in any way. Your contributions are appreciated. However wikipedia has standards that are determined by consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE It's is not I who have taken this issue to personally. In constructing this article, I took great care in to adhering to any regulations that govern the quality of articles submitted in to Wikipedia. The points I have chosen to highlight in my article are fact based, so it utterly baffles me as to how 'some' people still choose to dispute the truth. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but certainly FACTS are undisputable, and it was my assumption that Wikipedia is suppose to be FACT BASED. So perhaps those who moan about their own interpretations of the movie, can post their offensive comments on a chatroom ELSEWHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs) 10:32, November 8, 2006

It is not verifiability that is the issue, it is notability. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure if there are any merits to contributing articles on Wikipedia. Having done some research, it appears that some of those who have left comments on this page are regular pariticpants in so called controversial Deletion Drives. I am very disappointed that these narrowminded 'bullies' are permitted to continue their witch hunts and try to kill off articles prematurely. I am truly disgusted...though I refuse to be disparaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

Notability is subjective, obviously those who found my article must have 'noticed' it. As a matter of fact, with no links or redirections in any article on Wikipedia to my page, it has done a damn fine job substantiating itself as worthwhile and therefore NOTABLE addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

I have found the page by scanning the new pages[24], not by looking for this particular page. The majority of the page has noting to do with Cockadoodi Car, but only with the movie and the protagonists in general. The subject of the article, the particular quote Cockadoodi Car (which should be Cockadoodie Car), is utterly non notable and is not discussed in any WP:V sources, so WP:V is the issue here beyond the bare existance (but we are not here to have an article about everything that exists, no matter how minor it is). I'll ignore the rest of your post, as it goes against WP:NPA. Fram 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credit, where it's deserved And I quote "Not here to have an article about everything that exist, no matter how minor",...well for a 'minor' article, there certainly has been alot of controversy. I suppose it is beyond some people to not have an orgasmic chill over everything. I feel defending this article is almost a lost cause. I suppost a perfect comment to describe the animosity against this article would be Clark Gable's famous phrase from 'Gone With The Wind'..but oh wait, maybe that phrase isn't notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs)

Two people (one anonymous) pushing to keep this article doesn't qualify as "controversy". IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Author The anonymous person (with IP Add 161.74.11.24) is me, the author...I had no intention of masking my identity, merely as I do not sign in everytime, I leave a comment. But if you were to have read the comments by Samuraiman89 (Author) and Anonymous, you should realise the conistency and continuations of the same points made. Such immature behaviour as 'Socking' is very unlikely to be adopted by myself over such a trivial issue as this article.....after all, we're not exactly arguing about the merits of world peace, or some deeply important goverment inituative. Cockadoodi Car indeed.

What is the matter with you people

I am an avid reader of Stephen King Novels, and with Misery being my favourite of them all, I was utterly disappointed to find out that people were petitioning for this fantastic and humorous article to be deleted.

As a journalist for an independent magazine, in which the fantastic phrase 'Cockadoodie Car' was voted the No.1 most memorable phrase in a Stephen King novel (with It’s ‘can you float?' coming in a close second), I believe that all fans of the novel and movie should be able to express their own personal views and interpretations of the depiction of the Annie Wilkes character in any way, shape or form, and wherever they wish, and that is exactly what the author of this article has done. I personally think that it is utterly repugnant, revolting, vile, nauseating and absolutely appalling that some people would rally together and demand that this article be deleted. Once again I must state 'repugnant'!!! Wikipedia is a place for people all over the world to share knowledge defined as ‘the fact of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association’. With this definition in mind I believe that the author has done nothing wrong as everything that is stated in the article was something gained through the experience of reading the book or watching the movie. Nothing mentioned in the article has been falsified they are all of fact, and I am sure they were not intended to disparage the character in question. This article is merely a description of certain scenes depicted in the movie, and I think it goes without saying that Kathy Bates did not receive an academy award for her performance in this film for nothing.

What era are you people living in, the Puritan era? Is this a remake of the classic Salem witch hunts? I’m half expecting for you all to demand that the author be burned at the stake (along with the article)? Once again I must state ‘repugnant’. This kind of bullying will not and shall not be tolerated. If the author of the ‘Cockadoodie Car’ article had made false statements leading to a false representation about the book or film then I would see the need for this cause of action. But I have read the book and watched the film a countless number of times and the phrase is fundamental in describing the mental state and actions of Annie Wilkes.Oh the misery 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)M. Patterson[reply]

Please stop creating new identities just so add more to this AfD under new names. That is sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it goes without saying that Kathy Bates did not receive an academy award for her performance in this film for nothing. Agreed, and I think it also goes without saying that she didn't receive it just for saying "Cockadoodi(e) car" either. Tonywalton | Talk 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishguy I suppose everyone who supports my article is suppose to be an alternate version of me? Please do get life! I have better things to do, then to assume mutliple personalities to support a trivial article, such as that of a goddamn Cockadoodi Car. Nerd! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiman89 (talk • contribs)

please refrain from personal attacks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to obilge, but I do not appreciate meritless accusations.

I wish Annie Wilkes was here now to give you all a good dose of medicine and send you straight to bed! I also hear she has superb expertise in chiropody. I'm sure she would object to all this bickering, as "It has no nobility!" lol! 80.47.141.248 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If she were here, she would be expected to object based on Wikipedia criteria. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, if she were here, should would probably clonk everyone over the head with a typewriter, for trying to sabotage an article about her". As Ling Woo would say "I'm getting bored".

As Ling Woo also said, "I'm deaf to condescension. Right now I could hear a pin drop!" Hold on, I'm not sure I'm "comfortable" with what I just said. I think it has just set off the nervous twitch in my moustache. 80.47.162.46 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off topic, sorry, but I must say that the AfD is one of the more entertaining parts of WP. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a positive response for my article? "Sniff, Sniff"

He's not complimenting you, he's complimenting me and my razor sharp wit and use of Ally Macbeal catchphrases in a time of crisis. I'm not sure what I think of this article, as reading it caused a severe case of acid reflux in which I began to choke like Claire Ottoms. Bile. 80.47.148.228 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no credible third-party sources presented, or any other attempt to address the reasons for deletion (specifically failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or any other sensible critierion for notability). Only real arguments for keeping presented are precedent (which does not exist on Wikipedia) and the fallacious WP:INN. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liaoyang Professional College of Technology[edit]

Verifiability, nothing on Google. AfD instead of prod to ensure lack of systemic bias. - crz crztalk 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Schools can be verified. No assertion of such in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, it might be speediable as db:attack. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Criticism is allowed, Mike. - crz crztalk 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{db-atk}} specifies that the article exists primarily to disparage its subject. This doesn't seem to (though phrases like Some teachers have no confidence in their English skills; others are competent and A percentage of the students have noticeable learning difficulties look perilously like POV without sources). 'Keep and cleanup. Tonywalton | Talk 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup. Verifiability is an issue, but it seems clear that this college does exist: see this official Min. of Ed. list (where its name is given as "Liaoyang Vocational College of Technology"). Cannot find a website for the school, but my Chinese net skills are nil. -- Visviva 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can assure you that in the U.S. there are Ivy League schools and other leading universities charging $40,000 a year in tuition with very competitive admissions, where the technical classes are largely taught by grad students and professors who can barely speak English (although many of them have native fluency in Japanese, Chinese, or Korean). I know U.S. college graduates who went to China for a few years to make a good salary as English teachers. As for the school being real, nothing in the article sounds at all surprising. It is up to the editor creating the article to find a supporting citation. I could find no mention of a college in the town, but it is a center of the petrochemical industry and has seen widespread labor unrest for several years. Edison 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As we do with all post-secondary institutions. Lack of Google hits for a non-western institution is not uncommon and shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- Necrothesp 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has anyone done a google search in chinese? JoshuaZ 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per necro (w/ cleanup, poss. move per visviva.) is nommination just parochialism? the correct tag would be {{references|article}} & the relevant cleanups, no? → bsnowball 09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was sequentially speedied and prodded on notability by two separate editors. Suspecting that the thing is notable if real, but not being able to find it on Google, and not knowing a lick of Chinese, I figured to bring it here, so you guys can set me straight. I have not voted delete. I have absolutely no idea why I am being called names over here! Should I rather have let it sit around with a prod tag to be deleted - or deprodded it and left it unimproved? - crz crztalk 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - apol if that was too harsh. my point is: is afd the place to ask for improvements? what's wrong with deprodding, taging as relevant & attempting to refer to editors with relevant knowledge? (on the last i added china stub) esp. as, i believe, necro's correct about post-secondary? → bsnowball 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the matter had concerned tone and expansion or whatever, that would have been the course. But verifiability is the touchstone of a Wikipedia article, and I couldn't find any, so we had to have this AfD in order to establish it. - crz crztalk 12:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from the top of the afd page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." this is clearly aplies to a 2 day old stub without references, what u are saying wld surely only apply after weeks → bsnowball 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetracil[edit]

There is nothing in the article or the links to suggest that this is a notable spoof/website/blog/social commentary. Deli nk 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see how this meets WP:WEB Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Although very short-lived, this was an important spoof/social comment at the time, highlighting public attitudes to male homosexuality. It was notable at the time, and is now a historical curiosity. We're "not paper", so I think the article passes muster. WMMartin 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify for me, are you arguing that it is not notable now; but since it was notable at one time in the past, it should be kept? Deli nk 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Could you provide sources for this short-lived notability? --Fang Aili ^talk 22:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete 2,170 non-trivial google hits, which suggests deletion. On the other hand, it's funny. Uucp 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per views of User:WMMartin Xdenizen 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. --- RockMFR 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only references are a blog, themselves, and a dead link. I need to see a reference showing that this is or even was notable at some time, then I may change my vote. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Launch Vehicle[edit]

This is a borderline case for deletion, I think. It could become notable, but at the moment the subject is being discussed only on its originating website, and on NASA Spaceflight. I am concerned that this is being put across as more than what it is, which is a grassroots proposal having no official support. It has been listed in categories such as [Category:NASA] and [Category: Space Shuttle program], which is clearly inappropriate. I have removed these, but may have missed other instances. MLilburne 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite, don't delete. If you think it's being passed off as more than it is, then fix the article- don't nuke it. -Toptomcat 16:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping for other people's opinions on whether it was notable or not. It could potentially be considered advertising or original research. MLilburne 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shrug* My opinion is that it's notable. -Toptomcat 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Notability (WP:N) is not just a matter of opinion. One reference does not exist (click and nothing is found) and the other is someone's website. To have an article, there is a need for verifiable references to multiple independent reliable sources. Supporters of the project can call a press conference, show off a model and some animation of the concept, get endorsements from noted scientists, get this written up in the New York Times and covered by CBS and CNN, and then you are good to go with an article, but we do not accept using a Wikipedia article to bolster a concept which has no other notability. Edison 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no shortage of proposed paper rockets out there, and having an article (especially having references to it like the one in Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle) really does seem to assert a significance this particular proposal doesn't seem to actually possess. I'd have no problem with resurrecting the article if it got widely picked up, or was even just used as a comparison in a formal study by anyone other than its proposers... but not as the state of play is now. There are significant, influential, and widely discussed forms of SDLV which never got past concept stages - Zubrin's Ares, some of the obscurer Shuttle-C designs - but that shouldn't mean any proposed alternate design is notable, and I don't see this as either having had any significant uptake or recieved any critical attention from the wider community.

Even rewriting the article, to me, won't solve the fundamental problem - that there isn't significant secondary evidence that this is important.

I've poked someone over this who should hopefully know more than I do about it, and asked for a comment. Shimgray | talk | 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just for further information, the NASA Spaceflight article is here. MLilburne 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - This is real; I know one of the people who worked on the proposal, and it is published and being covered in the aerospace trade press etc. We do have other articles on proposed or in-development spacecraft (and a few which never got beyond the drawing board). That's not unusual here. In terms of whether the article misrepresents how "official" this proposal is (it's in competition to NASA's official Moon/Mars launcher program), that's a fair criticism, but should be addressed by a rewrite. We don't want a misleading article, but we don't want to delete all the proposed spacecraft articles either, and this is current, real, and newsworthy (at least, for now). Georgewilliamherbert 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be really helpful if you (or someone) could add a couple of citations from the aerospace trade press to the article. I don't reguarly read that sort of publication so couldn't manage it myself. MLilburne 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't Delete. As the guy who's name appears on the actual DIRECT Proposal itself, Ross Tierney, I would like to just say that this is real. It has NOT currently been chosen by NASA's own administration, but is being considered seriously at this time. Other organisations are also investigating it including the DoD & The Mars Society, and are strongly favouring our approach over NASA's current one. At this time, DIRECT is simply a proposal for an alternative direction for NASA to consider, and is rather appropriate given the fact the current Ares-I system it would replace is documented as falling short of reaching it's expected targets. While I have had nothing to do with writing the wiki entry myself, it does not appear to me to be "passing itself off" as anything more than a proposal. If the piece needs a re-write, that's okay by me. I will try it myself. But I certainly wish the wiki entry remains available to any and all who might be interested. Ross B Tierney 17:45, 7 November 2006 (EDT)

Keep It's a real proposal that I've heard of. Robovski 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant changes have been made to the original article and this should no longer be considered a case for deletion as originally claimed. User:Batoom 10:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue rewriting. Well, I've been convinced by the discussion and some of the edits that have been made. I would still like to see more outside context added to the article, though, and more sources. MLilburne 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment1 - Admins, the nominator has changed his mind here; this can be closed as withdrawn from AFD. Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 - Yes, it deserves more sources, and I will attempt to add some over the weekend. Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have done a fairly extensive re-write. It may still not be perfect, but I think it's a lot better. As for more extenal context: That will come with some major announcements due in the next month or so. Ross B Tierney 06:21, 8 November 2006 (EDT)

CommentThe article looks better, but I still do not see multiple independent mainstream coverage. I see an article at a website http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ which sounds like an official NASA site, but is apparently a private commercial site not connected with the government. Is it NASA or a private website about spaceflight? Still just counts as one source even if it is NASA and zero if private. And people personally vouching for it counts for zero, zip, nada. If there have been lots of publications about it, then add them to the article, don't just make unsubstantiated claims they exist. The creator of the proposal writing about it smacks of a vanity article and actually counts against inclusion. I am all for innovative spaceflight proposals, but the article is still nonnotable and original research until the notability is proved by multiple independent reliable and verifiable mainstream coverage. We are not a medium of first publication. Edison 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The DIRECT proposal was published first on the www.directlauncher.com website and following this an article was published on the www.nasaspaceflight.com website. The latter website is a recognised source of information on developments in space technology and regularly reports on developments at NASA and elsewhere, and has been cited as a source in NY times. The Wikipedia entry post-dates these and is not a 'means of first publication'. Further, the entry is not a vanity article as its original creator is not in any way whatsoever connected with the proposal. The proposal's author has since corrected technical details on the entry Batoom 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a Decision. There won't be any further announcements or links for at least another month or two. Things are happening behind the scenes, but this is BIG - as in political, federal budget and Pentagon level, not just NASA. I've done pretty-much all the re-writing I can offer in my free time at this point. I would thus like to request a final ruling one way or the other please. The deletion notice at the top sure doesn't add any assistance to our efforts. If the article doesn't comply, I'd rather it just dissappear than remain in its current state any longer. There isn't any point in adding a link from directlauncher.com to the wiki article while it remains. Ross B Tierney 20:49, 10 November 2006 (EDT)

I think that AfDs stay open for five days, so it ought to be closed tomorrow. I just have to say that the purpose of the article is not to "add assistance to your efforts," it's to offer a balanced appraisal of the proposal, its merits, flaws, and perhaps most importantly the impact that it's made. I will await with interest these future announcements. MLilburne 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I understand that, however this is a very delicate time for this proposal and public appearance is going to be a critical part of it's perception. Any public content which affects the "image" becomes of serious concern for us. The deletion notice at the top of such a popular site as wikipedia makes the proposal "appear" dubious - which it is not. On such a publicly respected site as wikipedia, this is a VERY BAD THING, and a serious issue for us. So I'm trying to work with you to it resolved ASAP. Keep or Delete; we don't mind. Just as long as it gets out of this bad-PR "limbo" state soon - please. Ross B Tierney 14:40, 12 November 2006 (EDT)

Keep and continue rewriting. This article represents a vigorous debate currently taking place within the inner circles at NASA and it's Field Centers, over the direction the American Manned Spaceflight program will take over the next few years. So long as readers understand that the final outcome of this debate is in a state of flux, it will serve to inform and educate. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should not be used as one. However, this debate, currently underway, could have profound implications for the United States, and is unlikely to be carried in the major newspapers until such time as NASA actually makes a decision. As such, a properly worded article in Wikipedia serves the interest of educating and informing those wishing to know, and having otherwise limited resources to explore. clongton 19:44, 11 November 2006

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piontakism[edit]

Non-notable, if true. "Joy Piontak" returns 4 ghits, and including Dr. brings it down to 0. Piontakism returns none, either. Also, we're still in the early 21st century, so how someone would know what happens later is beyond me. Contested prod. Amarkov ^babble 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 16:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:V Xdenizen 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fails almost every Wiki policy I can think of. --- RockMFR 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. Article does not qualify for a speed deletion. —Mitaphane _talk 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Oakshade 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Fuzz[edit]

Non-notable band. Prod tag removed by anon editor. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band was actually quite notable at the time, was recorded by well known producer Steve Albini, opened for a number of major acts, was played on MTV and various radio stations, influenced a variety of post-punk Chicago bands of the era, and is worthy of inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.205.130 (talk • contribs)

Question - Care to cite any sources for those claims? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unverified. Neither Amazon nor allmusic.com have ever heard of either band or album. Googling "Steve Albini Mo Fuzz" returns no relevant hits that I can see. And the article is pretentious tripe. Sam Clark 19:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. No relevant ghits and poorly written. Xdenizen 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; move can be discussed further on the talk page of the article, however there is no concensus for it to occur from this AfD discussion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnofetishism[edit]

del nonnotable neologism, original research and unverifiable information from non-serious websites: blogs, yahoo groups, etc., arbitrarily interpreted. Not a single reputable reference. Of course, sex and hyphosis is a long history, by syrens are in no way hyphofetishism. If exclude wikipedia, only 173 unique google links, a majority of which are totally meaningless. `'mikkanarxi 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Erotic Hypnosis (which gets a lot more Ghits) but has no article at the moment. This article needs a lot of work though. Dina 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move — concur with Dina — the only thing wrong with the article is its neologic title, which the recommended move will fix admirably ➥the Epopt 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I expect some working girls have made a good living pretending to be hypnotized. Edison 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per recommendation of User:Dina Xdenizen 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possible move, but this article is about a relatively popular fetish. A lot of producers of adult content cater to this kink. I agree with Dina's statements also. Robotman1974 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the deletion template at the top of the article doesn't seem to appear in Firefox. Robotman1974 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Erotic hypnosis isn't necessarily the same thing as hypnofetishism, as the latter is defined by subjects seeing hypnosis itself as not just erotic, but a required part of sexuality; this term is more accurate. It does need a lot of work, though. Danny Lilithborne 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is absolutely a hypnofetishist community out there. --Happylobster 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There very much is a difference. As well, the different term might help people looking for this entry. --WinterRose 02:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty Wooldridge[edit]

Delete fails WP:BIO No claim of notability is made sufficient for inclusion within Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. Brimba 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Splette :) ^Talk 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BIO Xdenizen 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- lots of Google hits about his writings. I had never heard of him, but he seems to be a moderately notable published writer. Kestenbaum 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked for reviews for the book, "Immigration's Unarmed Invasion", and I found dozens. Granted, they were mostly right-wing borderline websites, so it's hard to say if they qualify as "independent" reviews. Nevertheless, there seems to be enough out there to arguably satisfy WP:BIO and establish minimum notablity for an article. So, I reluctantly say "keep". -Kubigula (ave) 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A further indication of notability is that SPLC thinks he's worth denouncing. JamesMLane t c 08:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impurity (band)[edit]

may not meet standards for band article; possible conflict of interest; contested proposed deletion. No one objected during the proposed deletion waiting period, but Virabhadra objects now, so I undeleted and listed here. Note that he refers to the band as "we," hinting at a personal interest. According to the article, the band has not released its debut album and is on an indefinite hiatus. ➥the Epopt 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-on note: I deleted the article solely because of the unopposed proposed deletion and the concerns noted above; I personally have no opinion on the article's worth ➥the Epopt 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term hiatus was used to indicate the band's current status. By Wikipedia's own definition, this indicates "An inactivity of a band that has not formally broken up." The term is meant to indicate a gap in activity caused by a lineup change, hence asserting that the band's intent is to resume the project whenever possible. Concerning the release of the Of Lust and War album, I do concede that the wording of this article was not technically accurate. The album is not a debut for the band, but actually the 3rd official release. The first being Subjugation of Mankind, the second being Unearthly Affinity, and the third being Of Lust and War. What was originally meant by "debut" was that Of Lust and War was the first EP recorded by the group. I have changed the wording of the article to reflect this. Virabhadra 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band's hiatus isn't the issue: the issue is whether they're notable. No amazon presence, nothing on allmusic.com. Only suggestion of notability in the article is that they've supported some better-known bands, but so have I, and my band certainly aren't notable. Looks like a local band to me. Nothing wrong with that, but doesn't make for a WP article. Sam Clark 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the band meets the WP:MUSIC criteria under the outline "Musicians and ensembles", line 7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city..."

Impurity is the only Death metal band in Gainesville, FL, home to the University of Florida. The band is definitely the most prominent representative of this genre in the city. Virabhadra 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you quote says 'most prominent representative of a notable style OR the local scene of a city'. I don't see any evidence that Impurity are either of these different things, and that they're the only death metal band in Gainesville doesn't make them either of them. The band isn't the most prominent representative of the death metal genre (obviously); nor is it the most prominent representative of 'the Gainesville sound' or 'the Gainesville scene' (whatever those are). So sorry, my delete vote stays. Sam Clark 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything supporting this band's notability per WP:MUSIC. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Virabhadra 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this group is notable as per WP:MUSIC Xdenizen 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Virabhadra 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite Virabhadra's defense, there is nothing that indicates they are notable. They do not meet point #7 of WP:MUSIC as claimed, and Sam Clark has explained why. Andrew Levine 21:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - not the most cast-iron case for keeping, but there is barely a nomination for deletion either, with barely any attempt to dispute that the subject is notable. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please can nominators and participants keep an eye on AfD tags, because this one was removed today and not put back. If AfD tags remain absent for significant periods during the AfD, the AfD is invalidated. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Tsoukalas[edit]

Takis Tsoukalas is a controversial person and leader of Olympiakos hardcore fans. He is offensive towards to other Greek teams of fans and likes to humiliate them. This article lacks the quality to be a wikipedia article (totally unimportant content, non-wikified), has controversial content, it is not neutral. Also, it is vandalized many times by IP users, and its quotes are insulting (quotes which are not translated correctly and have sexual connotations or threats) . I can see no reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. KaragouniS 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC) KaragouniS 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Article asserts notability and the subject appears to meet WP:BIO. The article certainly requires cleanup and NPOV expansion. Some of those oh-so-memorable quotations (for instance "All the big teams of Europe won their leagues. You just got the third, the goal I mean") aren't so memorable out of context, but "it gets vandalized a lot" is no criterion for deletion (request protection), nor are "it contains inaccurate translations" (translate them accurately), "it is POV" (edit it) or "he humiliates people". "He supports team X and I support team Y" isn't a valid criterion either. Tonywalton | Talk 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, "... You just got the third, the goal I mean" can translated as "you and your team are a piece of sh*t and can win anything". This article is inimportant and irrelevant to a encyclopedia. Tsoukalas is a hooligan and hooligans biographies are not included in encyclopediasKaragouniS 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as per recommendations of User:tonywalton. The article does assert notability and seems consistent with WP:BIO. Just because an article or subject may be offensive to some people or groups of people doesn't render unsuitable for inclusion in WP. Xdenizen 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some work, but if he really is the host of a prominent TV show like the article says, that would indicate notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were protected I would work on it to make it a nice, fully referenced, respectable and neutral article, albeit about a not so greatly respected person. Yet while unprotected, it is merely a metaphorical dartboard for anonymous foes of TT. Keeping anonymous vandalism repaired would be too much overhead for, as was stated, not such an important article. So my recommendation is, protect or delete. - Samuel Erau 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. And on another note let's keep this discussion amongst greek people here, as only they have any first hand experience with the issue. That goes to tony, who does not seem to be familiar with the issues at hand yet diligently, albeit incorrectly puts forth his opinions. A marginal figure on greek trash tv should be the least item to be considered for wikipedia inclusion, and it's presence here only makes a mockery out of the essense of this encyclopedia, which I suppose is the intented goal, that and an inside joke. Had greek tv, or greek journalism been included in an extensive survey here I could consider this for inclusion. But letting this in as is we are opening the flood gates for who knows what to be included in the encyclopedia, next thing you know this becomes an outlet for anyone's self agrandasing prospects. Notability, and that agains goes out to tommy, is clearly not met here, unless of course we broaden the term as much as to include anything and everything and ultimately nothing at all. My two cents as a very frequent user and contributor here, despite my lack of a user account, for personal issues. 62.38.23.26 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria at WP:BIO are clear, and are not only applicable to persons with whose standpoint a given editor happens to agree or disagree (they are not marked "these criteria do not apply to people on Greek TV" either, as far as I can see). Tonywalton | Talk 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people don't seem to understand what Tsoukalas is, but just listen to us who see his (ugly) face every day. THIS GUY IS A HOOLIGAN, who tells children and teenagers to go and hit other team fans. He is considered the most hated person in greek football and in greek tv. EVEN OLYMPIAKOS FANS HATE HIM. IF you don't believe what i say, please ask any greek you know. It's a disgrace for this fantastic encyclopedia to include his name. He does not deserve it, guys. And you'll see that many people agree with me, in Takis Tsoukalas Talk Page ---- KaragouniS 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made an excellent case for this person's being notable. Tonywalton | Talk 10:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Schmuck[edit]

This is a somewhat misleading page. I had to read the whole article to realize that this individual has accomplished absolutely nothing notable. All of the biographical info has been in the article since the page creation by a user named FrankSchmuck. The only real page that links to it is a disambig of "schmuck". He has performed no act that seperates himself from every other military officer in the history of the United States. A g-search returns 224 hits, including Wikipedia (No. 1) and its mirrors as well as various "schmuck" insults to other people named Donald. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also has COI issues due to similarities between the surname of subject and creator's username. Kavadi carrier 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "commander, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines under the regimental command of Col. Chesty Puller. He led the 1st Battalion in action during 1950 and 1951, including the Chosin Reservoir operation and the Spring Counter Offensive." and an editor says he "has accomplished absolutely nothing notable." That sets a pretty high standard. The verifiable fact that he led a battalion in notable battles in the Korean Conflict and retired as a Brig. General is easily notable enough for an article. I don't care who wrote the article: please address the content and not the editor. Edison 18:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He has performed no act that seperates himself from every other military officer in the history of the United States. A g-search returns 224 hits, including Wikipedia (No. 1) and its mirrors as well as various "schmuck" insults to other people named Donald. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every fact asserted in the article is verifiable, and it is written in neutral language. The problem with a conflict of interest is the danger that the article won't have NPOV, but this article has overcome that danger. Buck Schmuck is a keeper for me (one of the sources reports that as his nickname). I really expected this to be some kind of joke due to the sound of his name, but it's not. OfficeGirl 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you familiar with WP:N and WP:BIO? -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but Edison's arguments already covered that, so I didn't have to. OfficeGirl 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, who really sheds light this time. --Christofurio 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He seems like an extremely impressive person, but having participated as a company grade officer in notable battles does not make one notable per WP:BIO nor does simply achieving the rank of Brig Gen. The article needs to provide evidence that Schmuck himself was singularly notable in either these battles or at some other point in his life. As a company grade officer in the Korean War, I have no doubt that his actions were vitally important in the immediate sense, but I do have serious doubts as to whether that translates to notability in a historical context. I salute General Schmuck's service, but this article reads like a combination of a CV and obituary without any attempt at establishing notability. JGardner 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison --Amists 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that a military officer who rises to the rank of General is sufficiently notable, even if he's just a one-star. I didn't add any info to the article because I'm not knowledgable enough to do so in sensible fashion, but there seems to be a reasonable amount of published material about his military record in circulation (particularly his combat record in Korea). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, I agree with Hit bull, win steak with the caveat of a major military which the US is. Forgot to sign: Carlossuarez46 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, but mark as an orphaned article. Nihiltres 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Rees[edit]

Contested prod. Law professor who has served as Dean of Law in his department at the University of Newcastle, Australia which is not (as far as I can tell) recognized as a leader in the field. Probably a fine individual but no indication that he comes close to meeting WP:PROF and there does not seem to be any reliable third-party sources discussing his achievements. Pascal.Tesson 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic. Sam Clark 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am puzzled by this person. Usually one would expect to see many publications by a dean or ex-dean of a law school. I would normally expect that a university would choose someone who was already notable for a dean's position. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not necessarily, the important qualities of a good dean are experience with the university processes. Pascal.Tesson 11:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zwack Ball[edit]

I have serious concerns about this being made up in school one day. i kan reed 17:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unsourced, WP:NFT. Google for "Zwack ball" "Codie Mitchell" brings up only this article. Kavadi carrier 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. hateless 17:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tonywalton | Talk 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't speedy possible here? Pascal.Tesson 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find a criteria that it meets. I think it's somewhat obvious the direction the afd will go, but process is process, and someone removed the prod. i kan reed 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why something like this isn't speedyable (as I understand it) is that a speedy might involve only two editors – one tagging it and an admin deleting it. (Only one in some circumstances, if an admin deletes on sight). A game like this might be well-known as being notable somewhere; the fact that two people haven't heard of it is not sufficient to speedy it. AfD allows a wider population to look at the article. Having said that it does look very like a madey-up thing to me. Tonywalton | Talk 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's never sufficient reason for deletion. Dumb things can be completely verifiable and culturally relevant(see:Intelligent Design). i kan reed 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's shorter than typing WP:BOLLOCKS. :P Danny Lilithborne 00:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Lijnema 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Catholic Infant School[edit]

This article does not assert notability of the school per WP:SCHOOL. None of the 36 links I've looked at tell me there's anything special about this school. Since this article is no more than a directory listing, I propose deletion. Kavadi carrier 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the WP:SCHOOL Comprehensive coverage criterion 2, as it is is part of a series of similarly maintained articles related to education in Buckinghamshire. It should, therefore, remain. Scribble Monkey 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails to meet WP:NOTYETAGREEDBUTI'LLMENTIONITASIFITWEREGOSPEL. Last time I looked WP:SCHOOL did not look like becomming policy as it had failed to reach consensus!

Was I the one to first mention that WP:SCHOOL criteria should be applied? Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An absolutely non-notable lower-grade elementary school. WP:SCHOOL has not passed and will never pass, and in NO OTHER GUIDELINES does it say that "this article is part of a series of articles, so it should stay." Inclusion of one article IN NO WAY implies inclusion of another article. If it can't stand on its own, it should be merged or deleted. -- Kicking222 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN. Edison 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination as not notable and having failed WP:SCHOOL. Xdenizen 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that WP:SCHOOL CC2 continues "...related to a specific school board, school district, or other notable organization"

Buckinghamshire County Council surely qualifies as such. Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All irrelevant. WP:SCHOOLS has no consensus behind it whatsoever (I could just as easily cite WP:SCHOOLS3- the new proposal). And of the material in WP:SCHOOLS- CC2 is one of the most controversial inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ 17:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Unlike some of the posters here, I'm not a veteran of these debates, and am not aware of the history of the different proposals. I responded to WP:SCHOOLS because the article was originally tagged with a proposed deletion notice, which claimed that there was No assertion of this school's notability per WP:SCHOOLS, by Kavadi carrier. I added some information to the article, which Kavadi carrier then tagged with an AfD notice, which pointed here. His deletion proposal at the top of this page starts with "This article does not assert notability of the school per WP:SCHOOL". I humbly apologise for naively assuming that WP:SCHOOL had any relevance at all to this discussion. Scribble Monkey 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary schools with their own articles? Seriously, wtf. No notability whatsoever. --- RockMFR 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-->Merge I can't see why schools like this aren't detailed by geographic area, the entry as given doesn't afterall tell me much about the school and if this is all that is available it would be more useful if it were listed along with other schools in the area on one page.

Possibly, although the use of categories rather than lists almost encourages separate entries. Scribble Monkey 10:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge and Redirect Any useful information regarding the school should be merged into Bishop of Northampton, under whose auspices the school operates. The article has not progressed past the stub phase in a year as an article and does not seem to be a likely candidate for expansion, given that it serves students ages 4-7. Alansohn 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere appropriate per WP:SCHOOLS or keep. Kappa 06:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, no notable alumni, no awards, no coverage beyond standard government reports. ~~No independent coverage at all.~~ at most one idependent source. JoshuaZ 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Government reports are independent. Kappa 06:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And indiscriminate. Kavadi carrier 06:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I'm not even convinced government reports are always idependent. Maybe you need to spend some time in the American South and look at how for example OSHA functions down there. In any event, I've modified my earlier statement to reflect the existence of the one source that goes along automatically with all schools. JoshuaZ 06:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ. >Radiant< 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge, if you can find an appropriate target, which the Bishop is not.) This is a verifiable, appropriate stub that's already been properly categorized. Un focused 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ. I've categorised schoolstubs before now; in doing so I wasn't implying they should be kept. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would be one thing if this had any real semblance of notability... but I cant make a valid argument to keep it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joshua. Guettarda 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bloody nursery school. Jim62sch 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom , per JoshuaZ, per WP:SCHOOL, and per Kappa. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable infant school. Catchpole 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Berkeley Democrats[edit]

Also nominating UW-Madison College Democrats, Georgetown University College Democrats

Poor naming issues aside (there is no such thing as "Cal Berkeley"), my understanding is that individual campus political groups are non-notable, as per their opponents, the (also inappropriately named) Berkeley College Republicans (AfD) and various other prior AfD's (see Republicans, Democrats). Otoh, the "Smart Ass" might deserve its own article per the California Patriot. ~ trialsanderrors 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These are all essentially local chapters of a larger organization. There simply is nothing here to support the notion that any of these groups are independently notable in any way. Perhaps a List of local chapters of College Democrats and List of local chapters of College Republicans is in order, but I see no compelling reason to have an idividual article for each and every chapter unless there is some compelling notability for said chapter.--Isotope23 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Campus political orgnaizations are not notable simply by existence. Resolute 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Consensus has been to delete student groups; I see nothing to suggest that these might be especially notable. ergot 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how does this materially differ from Cambridge_University_Labour_Club which survived afd due to notable alumni. [25] This club has the attorney-general of California as an alumnus. Seems to pass the notability threshhold. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're real organizations. They exist. Why not have an entry for them? AdamBLang 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm sorry, but AFD practice is pretty clear, and individual chapters of school groups are not inherently notable.-- danntm ^T _C 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Has the opportunity to be controversial. Let's stay off the soapbox.--WaltCip 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I must note that the arguments "there are other towns like this with articles" and "this means that there are lots of similar articles to be created" are both not reasons to keep/delete - the former is only applicable if the precedent article has gone through AfD, and then it is only a persuasive precedent; and the latter was disapproved by Jimbo Wales through pipermail to not be a reason to delete any article from Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louina, Alabama[edit]

Non-notable. Should either be deleted or re-directed to Randolph County, Alabama. Drennleberrn 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator has not denied that it was at one time the largest town in the county. Gazpacho 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete. Punkmorten 20:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What makes Louina different from any of the other ghost towns with its own page? SliceNYC 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for all reasons given above. Kestenbaum 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but deplore the nominator-bashing. WP:AGF please. ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete As I understand the article, the town only existed for 70 years at a time when it was probably easy to be the largest town in the county. If we adopt this criteria to the UK, there would be literally 1000s, (10,000s) of small settlements that were at one time settled for more than 70 years. The scottish highlands is full of old ghost villages probably all with several hundred years , if not thousands of years of history. --Mike 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All settlements are notable. -- Necrothesp 01:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All real places are notable, even if they no longer exist. Resolute 01:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It's a real place with a real history. The reason the scottish articles aren't loaded with these things is because no one has written the articles. Robovski 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough, within context. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly redirect. --humblefool ® 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otymy[edit]

Not much information given м info 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When an article says "X is the old name for Y", AFD should not be your first thought. Your first thought should be to merge that datum into the article for Y, which process leaves X as a redirect. Uncle G 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is Articles for deletion. It is not Wikipedia:Duplicate articles nor Wikipedia:Requested moves. Remember: When you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call. Uncle G 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sachiya mata[edit]

This article is a copy of Sachiya Mata Temple article. Probably, I think it is done to move article Sachiya Mata Temple to Sachiya Mata. If that is the case, I agree that correct name of Sachiya Mata Temple article would be Sachiya Mata but it is important that edit history of 'Sachiya Mata Temple article should be retained.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Prothro[edit]

Non-notable college football player; only claim of fame is a medal he won for making a good catch. I'm from Alabama, I'm a football fan, and even I haven't ever heard of him.Drennleberrn 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No offense, but you must not be much of a college football fan, especially if you are from the state. This guy was a national story last year and is arguably the University of Alabama's top player - they are still feeling his injury this year which helps explains why their offense is so poor this year (injuries, probation and their coaches). Look, I'm an Auburn fan and could really care less, but even I know who Prothro is. Do a google search on the guy as there is plenty of news about him which would seem to make the article a worthy entry. He was one of the top receivers in the nation before his injuries and when his leg is fully healed (if it heals - sure looked like an ugly break to me), I would think him to be a probable draft pick. Anyway, my vote is that it seems notable and should stay...at least until the end of his rehab. If he doesn't recover, then the article should definitely be removed. otduff 5:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He's obviously getting a lot less famous, though. I've never really liked the Auburn University team, because they've never played really well, and so I don't get what the F is going on with this "great player". Also...definitely get rid of the whole high school thing. Drennleberrn 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well your bias against Auburn has no bearing here as Prothro does not even play for Auburn - he plays for Alabama. And not sure what you mean by Auburn "never played really well" considering they play in the toughest conference and have been ranked in the top5 the last several seasons. But again, it's irrelevant...just funny that a supposed football fan from Alabama doesn't know better? As for the high school, if you look at many other players (Joe Montana, Bo Jackson, etc), their high schools are listed so not sure why it's not relevant here. Besides that, the article isn't very long so I don't see what the big deal is about mentioning it? otduff (talk/contribs) 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. Template Master 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfD debates Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems reasonably notable. An ESPY is a basis for notariety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs)

Keep Added three articles about him from New York Times and four from Tennessee and Alabama papers which were carried on a national press wire service. Notability is determined by multiple independent mainstream coverage, not personal like or dislike of a player or team. Edison 19:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per reasons noted by otduff; both that catch and his injury were national stories in 2005 (though the injury probably only because the catch had already been a story). Also agreed that if he does not return for a senior season (2007) or make the NFL, it should probably be removed, as he will be just a footnote. And agree with Drennleberrn that there is no need for the paragraph on his high school career, but I will wait until after this vote is complete to remove it. Pawl 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although I did hear about him, I do not think he is notable enough yet for inclusion. Mynglestine 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning an ESPY qualifies as notable. Also, playing a skill position for a Top 25 team (well, last year) counts as "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports...including college sports in the United States" (from WP:BIO). This is stretching it, but the highlight of that catch will probably be added to the "enduring historical record" of 'Bama football. Caknuck 03:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which proves that he is only famous in Alabama and outside of the state very few people know who he is. Drennleberrn 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added more info about his accomplishments, including his being named to the 2005 First-Team All-SEC and 2004 Second-Team All-SEC rosters; as well as him holding the third-highest all-purpose yards total in Alabama high school history. Caknuck 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's NOT THAT FAMOUS! He's not even a 'Bama hall-of-famer. You're making him look bigger than Paul McCartney here!!! Drennleberrn 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Paul McCartney's page is much longer. Also, it doesn't take being placed in a hall of fame to be notable in sports. By this logic, Adrian Peterson (star RB from Oklahoma) would be non-notable. The fact is, numerous articles have been presented. He is a likely NFL draft pick. This is enough to be notable.CraigMonroe 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Peterson might not be a hall-of-famer, but he should be. Despite "the catch", this guy deserves very little attention. As I say, there is probably nobody outside of Alabama who knows who this guy is. Drennleberrn 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've resolved that we keep this page now, but in a few months, when I've become more skilled with Wikipedia, I'll re-nominate it, and see the response. Drennleberrn 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense/attack page. NawlinWiki 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul zdanowski[edit]

Despite grand assertions of notability, there are only 12Ghits for subject. Probable hoax. Moreschi 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baron flying club[edit]

Non-noteworthy renamed/extinct organisation, and the article appears to be part of a widespread effort by User:Graham-hesketh to promote his article about Fiona Mont, and a YouTube video about her situation; without wishing to judge that situation, this article (amongst others) appears - in Wikipedia terms - to be spam and/or vanity, even if nobly-intentioned. Daview 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Non-noteworthy. Xdenizen 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madhumita datta[edit]

Article only weakly asserts notability, and "Madhumita Datta journalist" gets only 23Ghits. Clearly non-notable. Also vanity, judging by username of the SPA who created the article. Moreschi 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears non-notable. Kavadi carrier 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It isn't notable. Hello32020 20:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 10:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The book (plus documentary film and TV work) might make the grade if properly cited. But most of my search hits seem to be about a different person - the environmental activist Madhumitta Dutta (on Bhopal and ship-breaking pollution issues). --Mereda 10:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Madhumitadatta and Delete. utcursch | talk 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Madhumitadatta and Delete per Utcursch Doctor Bruno 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending assertion of notability. I've read the Aajkal newspaper in the past and to assert that someone is the "chief reporter" without a byline is unsubstantiated. Also mentioning the names of the television programs would be useful as would the publisher of her book, since a book may be self-published with a print order of 100 copies.Antorjal
Weak delete- More references are needed to convince her notability. Is there any Bengali wikipedians to comment on this topic..? I got this link from google.[26]But her notability is still in question...!. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 or A7, take your pick. -- Steel 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Web Calling[edit]

Apparent corporate advertising/PR/SEO job Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The content is pure promotion. The product can be added, with proper encyclopedic style to Verizon Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the overview section to Verizon. The rest is too spammy to let live anywhere. Kavadi carrier 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been edited to remove 'spammy' references, and should not be deleted. --By97aa 19:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomnination. Advertising. Xdenizen 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MSN Messenger/Windows Live Messaging/whatever they're calling it now. It appears to be a feature of the IM system that happens to be branded Verizon. hateless 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such. --- RockMFR 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - notability established by a Tripod site and a Google search? Doubtful - Tripod sites are self-published by definition and very unlikely to be reliable. But challenging assertions to notability is the responsibility of those arguing for deletion, and there hasn't been enough participation here to reach a consensus. AfDs like this should not prejudice against future attempts to gain a real consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Zalewski[edit]

Non-notable, unless you are impressed by things like "initiated three people into the 7=4 level." Leibniz 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so harsh, there is some hope in the form of statements like "By 1975 he was chosen to compete as a New Zealand team member in the IAKF World Karate Championships in Los Angeles," which implies he might have represented his country in some karate event. But this article is totally unsourced and we cannot overlook that, hence delete unless sources are provided. Kavadi carrier 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per comments of User:Kavadi carrier. Changed to weak keep in light of establishment of notability by User:Tonywalton Xdenizen 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability established by http://members.tripod.com/worldkarateunion.org/id63.htm et al. Tonywalton | Talk 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not he is notable, it was an interesting, albeit very confusing article. E.g. He seemed to receive the 6th dan about 3 times. Some of the terminology must be explained, I'm not sure whether the "temple of doom" or whatever the names was is a made up name or an official karate term. The various martial arts also seemed to merge into one as if he were some kind of paganist new-age occultist fictional hero.

--Mike 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pat Zalewski is renowned as an occult author having published many books. He has headed a number of occult organisations. He is also an accomplished martial arts athlete. I am presently engaged in research at a university and they certainly consider him a reputable source for material. If he is reputable enough for a university then he is reputable enough for wikipedia. I feel your remarks on this page, and your talk page, regarding occultists demonstrate a lack of objectivity in this field. "I thought someone could argue that being "7=4 Adepts and co-chiefs of Thoth Hermes Temple" asserted notability. You never know with these occultists. Leibniz 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)" Perhaps you could refrain from editing (or requesting deletion of) pages you have an evident bias about.

Morgan Leigh 05:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 {{db-nonsense}}. (aeropagitica) 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pering[edit]

very bad joke. See Semi-empirical mass formula.--NHSavage 19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Sam Clark 19:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per patent nonsense criteria. Hello32020 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nomination. Nonsense. Xdenizen 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong (Wii)[edit]

Only evidence provided is a mere listing in the GameSpot database, with no substantive coverage, which fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). When reliable sources are provided, the article can be recreated. Dancter 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to DK Bongo Blast. --70.48.111.77 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no evidence that they will be the same game. --Pinkkeith 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. It will probably get some reliable sources, but we can delete it until that happens. Do not redirect to the Bongo Blast article- this will just cause confusion when the article is recreated and links have to be fixed. --- RockMFR 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball scope_creep 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball. There will be almost certainly a DK Wii game, but until there has been offical announcements all this article can be is speculation. Mitaphane _talk 00:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duflpqy 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 passing reference inside a 22 page news 'interview' from back in January is not enough. I'm pretty open to the crystal ball when it comes to games if you have something to say but this 'article' is barely a stub. Now if we can see some more information and some cites to show that this is in actual development right now, then I'll quickly change my opinion to keep. Robovski 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation when reliable sources make an article viable. — Haeleth Talk 10:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a working title for the game which is currently not even in actual development as of this date. I think once any CVG reaches beta testing it is more apporiate to create an article for it. --Pinkkeith 13:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-paradigmal theory[edit]

Unsourced WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur completely. Anything that pretends to link chaos magic with XML programming seems too indefinite to have any explanatory or predictive value. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Essay. Moreschi 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its really is WP:BOLLOCKS scope_creep 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoooh I've had a quick look and the originator has only produced two articles, this one and Meta-paradigm. From the style of the entry they clearly are new and I would not like yet again to see the AfD Delete, Delete song as someone's Welcome! So, lets not be too hasty! On the other hand, there have been various comments on the article. My suspicion is that this article is just someone's opinion, whilst the Meta-paradigm seems to have some references and might therefore be improved. Therefore perhaps what can be salvaged from this article should be added to the Meta-Paradigm--Mike 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy to join you in holding the horses, but this needs some references quick to show me it isn't either (at best) original research or (at worst) complete BS. Robovski 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it needs a complete overhaul, and perhaps a move to Paradigm_piracy. - Tsuzuki26 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - endearingly bizarre, but codswallop nonetheless. Tpth 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Postmodernist navel-gazing. I would also point out what I did in the AFD for meta-paradigm -- the concept of paradigm is a hard enough one to validate. This is going way off into the weeds, and puts the cart before the horse. Haikupoet 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete BS. I LOLed when I saw XML mixed in. Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one and it looks like nonsense Yuckfoo 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Indications of a consensus for merge, so I've added the tags. W.marsh 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loggernaut Reading Series[edit]

seems to be iffy in terms of notability. The claims it makes do not assert notability in themselves. Article should be clarified, expanded, or deleted. i kan reed 08:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Loggernaut.--TBCΦtalk? 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Loggernaut, don't really see how you could expand this to make it a worthy article on it's own. SteveLamacq43 14:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One argument for keeping Loggernaut Reading Series as a separate article (and the reason I set the page up originally) is that there seemed to be very little info on Wiki about different reading series, which are their own phenomena and distinct from online literary journals. Loggernaut is an online literary journal of interviews with authors. It would exist without the reading series, and vice versa. I don't think journals and reading sereis are the same thing. harlanjohnson 4 November 2006
Info about reading series is useful for authors, publicists, publishers, as well as people who enjoy live readings. I also did some work on this page, trying to set up a Wiki central area on literary reading series: Reading series. Perhaps I didn't do the best job setting everything up (I'm pretty new to this), but I do think that readings series are notable activities, and as reading series go, Loggernaut is a notable one. I'll pop a couple more external references to help demonstrate this. harlanjohnson 4 November 2006

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete As I understand it the reading series only relates to one state, of one country, I'm not even sure what a "reading series" is and whether it would be of any interest outwith a few teachers, within that one state within that one country. Is it the only reading series? Does it have any use outwith teaching? Is Wikipedia really the right place for this information? --Mike 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loggernaut. Appears notable and encyclopedia-worthy, but there's not enough material (or potential for expansion) to justify splitting off a separate article. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see anything to indicate notability, if someone points it out to me I may change my mind. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Merge to Loggernaut. Okay, I can appreciate the argument that there's not a lot potential for expansion, at least not at the moment. However, I do think that reading series are legitimate subjects for encyclopedia entries and I don't really understand Mike's comments above. Reading series don't have anything to do with teachers (and I don't know what "outwith" means). Consider them an analog to literary magazines: what literary magazines are to the publication of poetry, fiction, etc., reading series are to the public performance of the same. In the U.S. at least, writers travel around the country reading from their work, connecting with their audiences--it's one form of keeping the oral aspects of literature alive. As with literary magazines, some reading series are better known than others, some have reputations for presenting certain kinds of work, some are local, some attract national and international talent. I still think that a brief entry giving the relevant information about a noteworthy reading series is as useful as a brief entry giving the relevant information about a noteworthy literary magazine. But if people disagree, then I'd say merge Loggernaut Reading Series with Loggernaut. harlanjohnson 11 November 2006
What, then, do people think of the entry for Reading series? It's in need of expansion, certainly, but is it not a legitimate entry? I thought it was a useful start. harlanjohnson 11 November 2006

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Slanina-Davies[edit]

Non-notable actress. Has apparently had only one role. No entry in IMDB. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. Xdenizen 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO, per

Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
* Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers5 * A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following * An independent biography5 * Name recognition
* Commercial endorsements

Hiding Talk 21:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep very well known actress in the uk scope_creep 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't watch any soaps, but I think I recognise the face --Mike 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary actress in a very popular TV show. --Oakshade 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Optimale ^Gu 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commenters. Yamaguchi先生 05:54, 9 November 2006

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 23:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandler O'Neill and Partners[edit]

Delete boutique investment banking firm. Lost one-third of its staff in the WTC during 9/11, firm not otherwiise notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Memorial pages already exist for its staff victims here. Ohconfucius 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this subject notable. New York Times article is a good reference. Just because a list exists of 9/11 victims doesn't mean those victims or the companies they represented are not notable. --Oakshade 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable firm. There are many more important financial institutions than this that don't have articles and rightly so. --SandyDancer 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And there are many less important financial institutions that do have articles. I think for both POVs it's best to keep the Wikipedia:Pokémon test out of this (interesting that it was used to delete in this case). --Oakshade 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also find this subject notable. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Is this just your personal opinion, or have you applied the WP:CORP criteria? If the latter, how does this subject satisfy the criteria? A good argument citing sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied will work. "I think that it's notable." will generally not. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) I was working on it. Comment: according to this, this company was the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, fulfilling criteria #1 of WP:CORP. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. I fail to see the notability of this firm. Xdenizen 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let us address WP:CORP. The sad fact that a tragic loss of life struck this firm heavily is not, in itself, a measure of notability. There are *not* multiple non-trivial published works that address what the firm does. The only possible notability it had, however briefly, was when it was nearly destroyed. I'm afraid it doesn't meet notability for me, based on how I see WP:CORP. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 21:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additional possible notability evidence: 106 unique hits in Google news, all of them in 2006. This at least shows that non-trivial organizations like CNNMoney.com and the Boston Globe quote financial analysts from Sandler O'Neill. However I'm not sure if that translates into additional notability, because I don't know much about the financial industry. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- I have to point out that Sandy Dancer, above, is being defeatist. If there are more important financial institutions than this one that don't have their articles, then those also deserve articles. Let's get busy and write them. We aren't using up paper, after all. This is a very notable firm, regardless of the 9/11. The fact that it also became part of history on that date works in favor of its notability, though, not against. --Christofurio 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable firm, and it is a well-established precedent that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Moreschi 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amazed this article is being listed for deletion. It is one of the best known firms of its kind on Wall Street precisely because of its massive losses on Sept. 11.--Mantanmoreland 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be kept I thought I would look at the article to see whether it might be kept. Unfortunately, as written there is nothing written about the company which would suggest it merits a place in wikipedia. Obviously the entry concentrates on the World trade centre terrorist actions. I'm sorry to sound cold, but as a user of Wikipedia, I would quite like to have some information on the casualties of the event, and that is what the article must provide - but I wouldn't be looking for this article under this name, so it would be almost senseless to put it in. I don't know whether it exists, but I can't see a problem with a page detailing the statistics of the event, which companies, were involved, how many people in each, where their offices were, etc. THere is a story to be told, and valuable information but this is not the way to enter it. --Mike 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read Mantanmoreland after I wrote above. I think the criteria I would apply is that the company has been used as an example by many reports - at the very least there ought to be an explanation of why this company has become an example and several references to reports. That doesn't come across in the article, it sounds as if it is one of several hundred. --Mike 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article does not have to provide a list of terrorist casualties of the company to show notability. If you would like to see a list of casualties, you can make a request on the article's Talk page, but that has nothing to do with AfD. Besides, outside of that tragedy this company is presently a real and important international financial company in the investment world. Just a casual recent google news search and you can already find numerous business/finance articles where this company or its representatives are consulted, sourced and quoted as valuable financial analysts. [27][28][29][30][31] --Oakshade 00:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company's losses and response to 9/11 ALONE make it worthy of any article, being the subject of countless national news stories -- stories explicitly about the company and not just the employees who died -- including Fortune in 2002 ("Rebuilding Sandler O'Neill: The response to terrorism").

In addition, a quick look through Google News gets 96 hits -- including several companies issuing press releases touting their upcoming presentations at a Sandler O'Neill Financial Services Conference [32] [33] [34] [] -- clearly, they think being connected with Sandler O'Neill burnishes their images. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial factoids from their web site, which I'm sure I can verify from third-party sources when I get the time:

From January 2003 to March 2005, the firm participated in raising more than $66.4 billion for its clients in 155 offerings of debt and equity and managed or co-managed 100 offerings aggregating over $36 billion.
From 2002 to March 2005, we were ranked #1 in the U.S. for bank and thrift equity raising by volume and by number of transactions. [35]
We are one of the largest market makers in NASDAQ financial stocks, and have access to all major stock exchanges. [36]
The firm is one of the most experienced in this sector, advising on more than 464 transactions with an aggregate principal amount of $22.6 billion in the last ten years [1996-2005]. [37]

On the face of it, doesn't sound the least "non-notable" to me. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the stats cited above, the key words here are "participated", "co-managed" and "advising". Bank deals such as debt and equity offerings typically have multiple banks and financial advisory firms participating in the deal. It is not unusual to have 3, 4 or 5 (or significantly more in syndicated loan deals for instance) large major banks (such as Citigroup or Deutsche Bank or Merill Lynch) participating at different levels for different fees (Lead Manager, Senior Co-Manager, Junior Co-Manager, Lead Advisor, Co-Advisor, Bookrunner, Documentation Agent etc etc) plus smaller firms such as Sandler dealing with less capital intensive or specialized aspects of the deal which the larger institutions decline because the fees offered are too small (major banks turn down business all the time when the fees are too small). So "participating in raising $66.4bn for its clients" means that Sandler took part in $66.4bn worth of deals which larger players had the major roles. A better indicator would Sandler's actual earnings (a small fraction of the value of the deals). Bwithh 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your analysis is of course correct. However, what these numbers indicate is that Sandler is a player even if it is not a top-bracket firm. That and combined with its Sept. 11 losses make this, in my view, a definite "keep."--Mantanmoreland 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Wikipedia is not a memorial" doesn't mean that notable deaths must be ignored in determining notability of a company. The WP:CORP guideline naturally focuses on the routine case; it shouldn't be interpreted to mean that a single momentous event can never be the basis for keeping an article about a company. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mantanmoreland, and by applying the "passer-by" notability test. (Yeah, ok, I just made it up). I'm just passing by, and I've heard of them...ergo, they're notable. (I'm fully aware that this test in no way comports with WP:Notability.) Seriously, though - if this company really does fail WP:Corp, I'd say that this is a good time to ignore all rules. --TheOtherBob 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queplix[edit]

Not notable Sleepyhead 10:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. The number of buzzwords involved also indicates that this is spammy. MER-C 11:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid 64 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Article reads spammy/advertisement. Xdenizen 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C. There might also be a conflict of interest. The article was created by what I suspect was an SPA. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its an advert for sure, outside the scope of Wikipedia scope_creep 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete No different than a description of thousands of other companies --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.17.138 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete Per MER-C because it fails WP:CORP. Daniel5127 (Talk) 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete In the current article no buzzwords. Just a company description, much less text than thousands of other companies, but descriptive. This is an open source software company, which obviously some users here want to see removed from Wiki. --{{Syaskin 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)|68.37.17.138}}[reply]
Comment. The company that created this article just contacted me with a fairly obvious form letter. Leads me to believe there's some serious conflict of interest in this entry. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I saw this on a RC Patrol, I'd probably mark it "speedy" for lacking any assertion of notability. --TheOtherBob 17:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Englewood Lubbock[edit]

Non-notable location, 13 unique G hits. Was previously de-prodded. Fang Aili ^talk 20:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Non-notable. Xdenizen 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge in with Lubbock article scope_creep 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a famous entertainment district, my guess is some developer decided to do some selfpromotion. BoogerManus BoogerManus 02:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, those who argued for the article to be kept in order to be merged are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuntematon Maa[edit]

Fails all points of WP:WEB. Being the largest xxx forum in xxx country is not enough to be notable. --- RockMFR 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it definently fails WP:WEB, Wikipedia is not a web directory for a standard dating website scope_creep 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "standard dating website". If you actually read it (which may be difficult, as it is in Finnish), you would note that very little of its content is dating. It has more discussion about BDSM in private relationships and BDSM events. I just wanted to point that out. JIP | Talk 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:WEB disagrees with this pages' existance. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to BDSM in Finland. Deserves at least a mention. JIP | Talk 07:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have a BDSM in Finland article? Are we going to have BDSM in _____ for every country? --- RockMFR 07:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turun Baletti. If we won't have separate articles for each country, then where would this be covered? In the main BDSM article? JIP | Talk 07:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't quite understand the circumstances surrounding that article's nomination/deletion, it seems like the speedy delete decision there indicates that Turun Baletti shouldn't be covered by Wikipedia at all. --- RockMFR 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per JIP. I don't accept the argument that a subject not notable enough for its own article must never be covered at all. For example, our bio articles about notable people typically name the subject's nonnotable spouse and children. Also, I agree with JIP's reasoning re having a separate BDSM in Finland article. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Yomangani ^talk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Shah[edit]

Notability concerns re: WP:BIO. The subject of the article runs a large number of websites complicating WP:V. The sources given in the article are mostly http://www.askdrshah.com/ MidgleyDJ 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I also think this fails WP:BIO and I agree that there are neutrality issues. Xdenizen 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its a puff vanity piece. scope_creep 00:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong keep now this is one worth keeping despite his multi-website SEO antics. Two articles from Sify.com[38] (interview),[39] (feature), [40] (feature). These alone will satisfy the "multiple independent reliable sources" criteria of WP:BIO. In addition, he's backed up by a veritable pageful of press mentions (scans from offline sources included—nice!). [41] And I haven't even mentioned he's made it into the Limca Book of Records yet. Kavadi carrier 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: To overcome the problem of Google getting results from multiple websites all operated by the subject himself, throw in -site:sitename.com for each site that they operate. Kavadi carrier 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Limca book is notable, Sify is notableBakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is strongly suggested since the references mentioned are genuine. Limca Book of Records is a verifiable source and so are the articles on Sify.com and Rediff.com. Additionally his articles published in the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA are a strong evidence of his written contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapnafive (talk • contribs) (moved from top of page - please post new comments at the bottom, and sign with ~~~~. Thanks! Kavadi carrier 06:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep Sify, Rediff are independent third party sources. Limca Book of Records is an authentic source and so is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA. These are enough references for the data to be verified. askdrshah.com has been been given as a verifiable source as Dr Shah's contribution to understand the scope of homeoepathy in various illnesses.Sunildp 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Dr.Sunil— Sunildp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kavadi carrier 07:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd argue that http://www.askdrshah.com is a most inappropriate reference - it's hardly independant of the subject. MidgleyDJ 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kavadi carrier. The article needs better references, though. utcursch | talk 13:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Sunildp. Bad faith nom. Does running a large number of sites make a person fail WP:V Then Page, Wales, Gates etc should not have an entry here. Doctor Bruno 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was certainly not intended to be in bad faith. My efforts to research the subject online turned up mainly material written by the author or on websites the authors run. If you read my nomination you'll notice that I said the large number of sites run by the subject (or associates of the subject) complicate verification - I did not say it was a reason the subject was not notable. MidgleyDJ 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point of view is there is NO NEED to mention the sites he runs. I agree that you have not acted in bad faith. May be my comment was bad faith. Sorry if that was personal Doctor Bruno 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because he seems to be notable - and as mentioned above, there are verifiable sources. --SunStar Net 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. SiFy is at a tabloid level and Limca has over 10 000 entries. -- Jeandré, 2006-11-08t21:11z

Reply - by what rationale do you call it a tabloid? Just because you probably have not haerd of it or him (I never heard of Rajesh Shah either) doesnt mean it isnt a reliable source?Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep please this physician is notable with many publications Yuckfoo 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's true they should be listed in the article. Is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA a peer reviewed journal? MidgleyDJ 01:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly feel that the debate is more so due to the ignorance of some editors about the field of Homeopathy and that they need to read up adequately and understand the subject first. Each homeopath differs in his approach towards treating patients, hence the scarcity of cross references. You could refer to some websites on homeopathy, only then you will realise the extensive research done by Dr. Shah and his contribution to the field of Homeopathy for more than 20 years. As far as the journal is concerned, Simillimum which is the Journal of Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, USA is an independent peer edited journal. References of Dr. Shah’s articles in various other international journals have been cited and are definitely verifiable.Sapnafive 07:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]
- Please do not "vote" twice because this is not a vote. We know you said the same thing twice; doing so only increases our suspicions that you have an interest in promoting this guy. Kavadi carrier 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The text above was meant to be a comment only. I am still updating my knowledge about Wikipedia editing rules.Sapnafive 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]
Strong Keep The references given in this article are from reputed Homoeopathic journals and independent organisations thus satisfying the verifiability criteria. His individual publications as cited also appear genuine. I would also agree with Sapnafive because after going thorugh references, he comes across as a Scientific Homeopath and not a Speculative one. Ashwinee 10:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Ashwinee[reply]

Comment I dont think it should matter whether the subject is a "Scientific Homeopath" or a "Speculative one" (whatever those terms may mean) - what matters is notability. I dont really think his own publications should count towards his notability. What should count are sources independant of the subject. I'm not in a position to judge whether Sify.com or Limca are notable sources - if they are, then the subject probably meets WP:BIO. MidgleyDJ 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for your information, Limca Book of Records and Sify are definitely notable sources and independant of the subject too. Sapnafive 10:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Dr. Sapna[reply]

Very Strong Keepbecause he seems to be highly notable - and as per majority said, there are verifiable sources. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, complete nonsense. Guy 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To peen[edit]

This is a straightforward dictionary definition, and as such inappropriate per WP:NOT. It also seem to be of dubious notability: the Google hits for "To peen" [42] all point elsewhere, and the Ghits for "To peen flirt" aren't exactly promising.[43] Even without notability concerns, this is just a straightforward dicdef. Moreschi 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , WP:NOT a dictionary. Is this in Wikitionary? --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism, or might I say protologism? Mak (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existing article on London slang if applicable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.65.200 (talk • contribs)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially urban dictionary. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 22:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:NOT. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no substantial reasons presented for keeping (the inclusion of other articles is not a claim to notability). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Correctional Institute[edit]

Does not assert the importance or significance of the subject -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State hospitals and prisons are notable. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disagree. It is merely a building and has no greater inherent notability than any other building. I'm almost tempted to slap a {{db-context}} tag on this one. Resolute 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dislike "if x, then y" arguments as much as anyone else, but it really does seem silly to keep articles on local high schools but delete ones on state prisons. If someone wants to expand this article, I would suggest using this as a reference. ergot 20:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed, it provides a nice continuity for those students going directly from one sort of institution to the other. In any event, do we keep articles on local high schools if they aren't notable for some other reason than that they're a high school? I haven't ever seen a clear consensus on that, but maybe someone can point me to one. --TheOtherBob 00:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no inherent notability in prisons, nor does this article make the case for it. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I have no problem with the notability of this subject, and articles needs more than an introductory statement. Unless someone wants to expand this I don't see why it cannot be delete for lack of content. As is, it is basically a dictdef for a proper noun. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the topic is notable, the article is not even a stub. Get it up to stuub status and it becomes a speedy keep. Vegaswikian 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. High-grossing films are not permitted to buy off Wikipedians. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic characters[edit]

Those characters have only appeared in one film, and their articles are simply redundant summaries of plot. Specifically, WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." and WP:FICT: "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction." Other problems include sourcing and in-universe prose. Interrobamf 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per Danny. Guy 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, a standard procedure for such cases of fancruft. `'mikkanarxi 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Have we forgotten that this is the highest grossing movie in history? A movie this huge has more than enough written about it to support all of these articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't quite overturn WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Interrobamf 12:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we can edit to fix the former, and I don't believe these violate the latter. Deletion isn't the answer here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read. "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Interrobamf 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Jienum 13:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC), If these pages must be deleted, then there's no point in merging them with the Titanic article since their pages are brief summaries of the plot. They might as well be deleted.[reply]
Merge and redirect now if we can apply these sensible rules to the Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Simpsons, and Pokemon universes. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those characters do have more substance beyond a single film, though. Interrobamf 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Rose gets her own page, and this is a really big movie.Duinemerwen 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Really big movie" doesn't nullify policy and guidelines. Interrobamf 13:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these articles. This is the biggest movie of our time! Martinurquhart 09:39, 13 November 2006 (GMT)
- Is User:212.219.248.235. Either not logged on or impersonating Martinurquhart. Again, "biggest movie of our time" isn't a decent argument against enforcing policy. Interrobamf 13:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only deletion argument of relevance is Mikkalai's, because he was the only one to address the work done by Soman; consensus among those that have kept up is clearly for keeping. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks)[edit]

del nonverifiable. The only reference to a bizarre source mentions it only in a footnote. Google gives nothing. On a personal note, I find it unbelievable a Russian could have concocted such a name. `'mikkanarxi 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Little is known about the group, and its actual existence has been doubted." 'Nuff said. Fan-1967 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see the point of the article, nothing links here!--Mike
Speedy Delete There is already a bolsheviks article scope_creep 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Keep, per EXCELLENT work done on the article. No reliable sources, and the article has nothing to say. In fact, the article indicates that there will probably never be anything to say about this topic. OfficeGirl 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Another example of how pre-www structures fail google tests. The article hold relevance. Little is known about the outfit, but the article is relevant out of two points: 1) The draft programme of SRC(b) was distrubted throughout the world by pro-Chinese and pro-Albanian groups. It was generally referred to as the voice of the internal USSR Left Opposition. 2) Although it cannot be confirmed, at least not by myself, whether the SRC(b) was a real organization or just a Chinese propaganda hoax, there definately was existed a pro-Maoist, student based, opposition in the USSR at the time. For obvious reasons, it was completly clandestine and there is little written about it. If anyone could taken on the task, this article could be rewritten to deal with Maoism in the USSR in general (as to opposed to just the SRC(b)), but I strongly urge not to delete it. --Soman 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I can add more sources, although the all refer to the same draft programme. I included that link which is in the article now, since it went further than just stating the name of the group. --Soman 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)**Note: The group is mentioned at [44] and[45].--Soman 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The original document can be accessed at the Schezuan University Library. see [46]. --Soman 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The criticism that "pre-www structures fail google tests" may well be valid. However, that is not a strong enough argument for us to keep an article with Unverifiable information. Fan-1967 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I can did up print sources, but it will take some time. --Soman 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Query: I am impressed to see your initiative. Would you consider userfying the article to give yourself ample time to work on it? Then you could re-post the article when you got it into good shape. That would solve all issues being discussed here. OfficeGirl 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OfficeGirl is right. When you write a meaningful, properly referenced article, no one will object. Right now the article is plain false. The problem is not in google, the problem is in the author, who probably does not fully understand wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Reliable Sources. `'mikkanarxi 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And just to add a point which may not be clear to a newer editor: we will not keep an article in expectation (or hope) that sources will be added at some point in the future. If reliable sources are not available today, the article needs to be removed until such time as verification is available. Fan-1967 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll try to rewrite the article today itself, or possibly tomorrow. The following can be verified, with reliable sources (like PLA congress documents):
At the 1964 congress of PLA a Draft Programme of SRC(b) was presented
In PLA congress protocols it is mentioned that a SRC(b) delegation attended. (No names are of course mentioned, for security reasons)
The SRC(b) document was distributed amongst pro-China/Albania groups worldwide.
The SRC(b) document was, in summary, a critique of the economic policies of Chrusthev.
The SRC(b) document in many ways functioned as a program document of the Albanian/Chinese in their criticism of CPSU during the initial phase of the Sino-Soviet split, explaining why they regarded CPSU as revisionist.
The SRC(b) played a role in Albanian propaganda at the time, giving PLA legitimacy in terms of their relations to Soviet communists. (CPSU rhetoric at the time was that CPC/PLA were splitters from the Communist Movement. Using the SRC(b), the PLA responded that it was the CPSU that had diverted from Marxism-Leninism, and that the SRC(b) rallied genuine Marxist-Leninists in the USSR).
At least one author (the link given in the article) has questioned whether the SRC(b) was an actual organization, and claims that it was just an Albanian propaganda hoax. It should be noted that the author in question makes a rather general statement, essentially saying that since he never heard of the SRC(b), then it didn't exist.

What I will not be able to answer is the following question:

Was the SRC(b) a genuine organization or an Albanian hoax? The article still holds relevance with either answer. At this point we can only conclude that there is speculation over the SRC(b). If anyone is willing to plunge into KGB archives to find out more about the Maoist student opposition in the USSR, I would highly welcome it, but its a task I cannot physically do myself. Of course such a group would have been completly clandestine, perhaps working as a secret fraction within the established Soviet structures (like radical Maoists in China today). Official Soviet sources would not reveal its existance.

--Soman 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Swedish translation of the Programme is availible at the Royal Library, Stockholm. see [47] --Soman 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment French version in full at [48], see also[49], mentioned in [50], [51], [52], [53]. --Soman 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keepSoman has shown that the group existed in some form. However, I don't think one can be sure they were in the USSR, they may well have been in Albania or in both places.FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I'm convinced after looking at the refs that the entity existed, if only perhaps in the minds of some people. Since the Soviet and Albanian archives are now somewhat accesible, the article - which is pretty poor at this point - could theoretically be improved. It's hard to judge the notability of the group, because to English speakers it had only a hidden existance in a far-away place. But I would default to the least destructive option, which is Keep. Herostratus 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the refs one may only be convinces that the author is going to do original research from some historical documents. Until the contributor provides a legible reference from an expert historian, the article is a no-go. `'mikkanarxi 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this would not be a case or OR. The article would present that the Albanians claimed existance of group, a document was distributed and there would be an open speculation of the actual existance of the group (based on lack of sources). Not all articles at wikipedia give complete answers to everthing about a subject. --Soman 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to misunderstand the term OR (see WP:NOR). Unless the topic is covered by an expert (historian or reporter or writer), collecting bits and pieces (marginal mentioning, texts of documents, etc.) all over internet is OR. Only a professional may evaluate all these. Our job is to report findings of professionals, not to do own historical search. `'mikkanarxi 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now appears to be well sourced (given the circumstances) and well done. Sandstein 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No-one appears to be challenging Mereda's point that there are no indications that the subject has been covered by reliable third party sources, no other substantial claim that the subject merits coverage in an encyclopaedia. (If being 20 years old is a claim of notability, where's my article?) Google hits and WP:USEFUL are also non-criteria. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stride Gallery[edit]

From PROD, where the reason given was "Non-notable local organization, fails WP:ORG." It's been around for 20 years, though, so I think I'd like AfD to take a look. -Splash - tk 22:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Right on the edge, makes some assertion of notability in claims of what appears to be a published book. Has been around for a while, is not some art gallery that popped up yesterday to be replaced by a bank today. Chris Kreider 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - quite a number of google hits for a relatively small local organisation. If some good, third party sources can be found I'd recommend keeping the article MidgleyDJ 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prodded this article (checking through a category) when the sources I found in googling just didn't convince me about notability. For interest, three other open discussions about arts organisations at the moment are on Durham Association for Downtown Arts, Jansanskrity, and Transition Gallery. Can we be clear here? Is anyone saying that it has "a significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject"? Or is it longevity (20 years?) that ought to be relevant? Or what else is it here that matters?? --Mereda 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC) So I say delete. (And it was just an anniversary exhibition not a published book.) --Mereda 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a useful article for anyone wanting information on the arts infrastructure, where valuable organisations often do not command easily obtainable media coverage, because such organisations are neglected by the media. Here is an opportunity for wikipedia to be more useful and informative than mainstream media. Tyrenius 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communication in Mediation[edit]

Appears to be original research. The topic doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic, and Mediation already covers the relevant portions in a less essayish style. Shimeru 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles by the same author for deletion, for the same reasons:

Mediation Confidentiality
Mediation as an Alternative to the Legal System}} Shimeru 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medition: The roles and functions of Legal Representatives in Mediation where deletion of several similar articles is currently being discussed. Emeraude 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A look at the Mediation article shows that several other articles are proposed for that as well, I recommend all of these be added as well. What content should or should not be kept is another matter, though it may be very little. Maybe we should also check the rest of Tashacromp's contribs as well FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The proposed-merge articles in question are Responsibilities Regarding Confidentiality in Mediation, The Uses of Mediation in Preventing Conflicts, and Legal Implications of Mediated Agreements, all by a different username, Trentw. The style is identical, though, which makes me think it's either a second account held by Tashacromp, or that these are all copyvios from somewhere (which I'll be looking into in a moment). Tashacromp's only other contribution is Physical Environment in Mediation, which I could see as a valid subarticle of the general Mediation article. I'm uncertain what the protocol is as far as adding any of these to the AfD at this point, though. Shimeru 21:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They don't appear to be copyvios -- at least not of an online source. Don't have access to Lexis at the moment to check further. Shimeru 21:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything worth saving into the main Mediation article, which in its current form is spammy, badly formatted, and not very good. I may try to work on that later. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Bobet 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 13:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - once third-party sources are found, those arguing for deletion need to at the very least say whether their concerns are met. They didn't, so until adminship comes with telepathy, I'm forced to assume that they are. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistor.NET[edit]

Seems to be non-notable spam and fails WP:WEB. Tarret 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Non-notable spam, possibly COI. Xdenizen 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As a computer scientist, I can attest this is a genuine framework and is worth keeping. It needs to be put into context, tidied up, expanded, and linked. scope_creep 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't accept "Trust me, I'm a doctor." here. If you want to demonstrate that this software warrants an encyclopaedia article, cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep a software is not inherently notable just because you know it exists or you use it. Keep because they appear to have been mentioned in multiple publications [54] and won multiple awards [55]. However, remove the fluff about the features because no reliable sources I've found go into the details. Kavadi carrier 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaned up and now asserts notability somewhat. Kavadi carrier 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Higgs[edit]

Forrest Higgs and Brosis Innovations

Forrest Higgs - article created and written by himself (user:plaasjaapie)
Brosis Innovations - and his company, again created and written by himself

This is a malformed nomination by User:88.111.213.77 (who placed the contents directly onto the AfD page). Corrected here. ColourBurst 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, 'm off to advise the user about WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. Guy 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Smells of pork. Subjects not notable: 27 unique Ghits, the majority self-posted stuff by Higgs, and/or from agoravox or agoravoice, or wiki mirrors and other online dictionaries. the Brosis website is an amateurish Frames jobbie, and no alexa rank. Ohconfucius 07:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi People!

Just to set the record straight.

Yes, I did write the short biography and the little entry about my consultancy. If that is forbidden, then by all means we must remove the entries.

In fact, I did the entry when I was working on the RepRap article some months ago so that the RepRap article "People" section would have something to link to. I didn't really have any motive beyond that. As you can see both of the entries were very brief and to the point. As well, they've not seen much change since their posting.

None of the other intentions that I've seen suggested in your guidelines, viz, self-promotion, business seeking and the like were in the least intended or real. I have a full consulting load and am not seeking either new business or new customers. I'm also approaching the end of my career rather than it's beginning, so I'm not really very interested in self promotion, either.

You noticed that my "company" website is a mess. It certainly is. It was last active in the late 1990's and I just reinstituted the domain. Just why, I'm not completely sure since the domain really has no point. The old, old main page is partially up. It's not commercial and it needs a rewrite, something I haven't had time to attend to, since I stopped doing text mining consulting a long time ago.

As I have said, I had no ulterior motives in doing the entries for my name and little company beyond making links for the reprap article. If this warrants their being deleted, fine. If there is something that wants doing so that the entries can be brought up to an acceptable Wikipedia standard, I would certainly appreciate a little help in that regard.

Thanks,

Forrest Higgs aka plaasjaapie

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - knowledge management is a nebulous concept, to put it mildly, and to justify the deletion of articles like these needs a much clearer consensus over whether the British Standards Institutions 2004 Report is enough to base an article like this on. This AfD should not prejudice future attempts to gain clearer consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public sector knowledge management[edit]

Looks like WP:OR. Previously prodded but tag removed, so AfD. Hawaiian717 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its genuine, although the article needs badly tidied up, linked and referenced properly. scope_creep 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire article reads as an op-ed piece or a pitch. I would say to merge the referenced material into the main knowledge management article, but absolutely none of the actual content is referenced (only a handful of cites to stats). The topic itself does not seem terribly distinct from the parent topic to begin with. If someone would like to specifically reference (per WP:RS) all of the opinion based material, or to rebuild it as a stub, I'm sure I'd change my mind. Kuru ^talk 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article if focused on a view of KM in the British Government at a specific point in time. It could be a article headed "The BSI report on ...." but I am not sure what added value that provides. The BSI report is itself a discussion piece, does not represent a formal BSI position not is its contents subject to concensus--Snowded 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of the original page. I have edited it to make clear that the arguments are those which can be found in the published British Standards Institutions 2004 Report "Knowledge Management in the Public Sector", which meets Kuru's concerns fully. The rationale for having it as a separate page in the Wikipedia rather then under the general knowledge management page is precisely addressed by the BSI Report in its preamble, which I have added.

This is

"The understanding and practice of Knowledge Management has been growing rapidly throughout the public sector over recent years. Yet a constant comment from existing and nascent public sector KM practitioners has been that, until now, most of the analytical literature concerning Knowledge Management has sought to understand and explain it within a mainly private-sector context. There has not been a single, easy-to-digest national study that objectively and specifically analysed the growth of KM in the public sector and thereby set out the evidence-based public sector context within which Knowledge Management can add value to the work of public servants. The British Standards Institution, through this Guide to Good Practice, has sought to plug this important gap."

Keep Dave Snowden is a good colleague of mine, but he is not accurate when he says the BSI Report is not an agreed position. The Report was debated and agreed by consensus of the BSI committee which drew up the Report. Dave has a particular view which is and was not the consensus view of the rest of the members of the BSI Committee. It is more accurate to say that it was not a unanimous view, because Dave was not in full agreement, but if we only published documents which had unanimous views with no dissenters, then there would not be much on the site at all. This is an official and agreed BSI Guide to Good Practice and published under the BSI's authority and with its full agreement. Of course, Dave is more than free to add some comments to the article, but simply deleting the whole article would deny the Wikipedia community access to a good and thorough piece of research carried out in conjunction with the Warwick Business School.

--Joe McCrea 16:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara & Kara[edit]

This is a page on minor characters from a cartoon called American Dragon: Jake Long. There already exists a page List of secondary characters in American Dragon: Jake Long, which should be sufficient per WP:FICT. Skittle 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've not done this before. Should Brad Morton be considered at the same time, as it is also a copy/paste job from the List of secondary characters in American Dragon: Jake Long created by the same user? Skittle 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Help Desk, I have added the AfD template to Brad Morton, but linked it to this page. So consider this AfD for both articles please. Skittle 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes you should add them, as with most shows the minor characters should be on 1 page only. TJ Spyke 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I should just mention it here, or create a seperate AfD for Brad Morton? I seem to remember something about not loading the boards with many similar cases.Skittle 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two identical cases isn't bad. Thirty plus is. -- saberwyn 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete These disney characters are already detailed here. List of secondary characters in American Dragon: Jake Long scope_creep 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back into the list article. If there is any new content, it can be added to the main character list, if not, people might search for the actual character, and a redirect would bring them to the actual list, where the relevant information would be incarcerated. -- saberwyn 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a load of Sugar. Drennleberrn 03:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millie's_Cookies[edit]

Page does not appear to be any more than an advert Ringbark 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company. Relatively NPOV, although that could be improved. Skittle 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Appears to be an advert. scope_creep 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam/advertisment. Xdenizen 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad for division of company. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to cover this separately, so merge any usable content to parent Compass Group. JChap2007 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JChap2007. --- RockMFR 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep A chain with over 100 locations not notable? I beg to disagree. The unobjective advert aspect of the article means it needs to be changed, not deleted. --Oakshade 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And besides, these stores are prime staples at major railroad stations like Victoria Station and Euston Station (I admit to being a frequent customer :-)). --Oakshade 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That you are a customer is irrelevant. Wikipedia would be a mess if that were a criterion. If the company is as notable as you assert, it should be easy to demonstrate with cited sources that it satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 00:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The being-a-customer note was an obvious irrelevant aside attempting to bring some levity. Sorry you took it so seriously. Anyway, 100+ store chain is notable. If you dissagree, that's a POV dissagreement. I'd like to see some British people vote as that's where this company is highly visable. --Oakshade 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong. It's not POV at all. In fact, quite the converse. The number of stores in a chain is not a criterion exactly because where to set the bar is completely arbitrary, just as judging companies on numbers of employees or annual turnovers is setting arbitrary bars. The primary WP:CORP criterion, in contrast, simply requires published works of appropriate provenances and depths.
        By the way: A reason for involving British people is most definitely not the one that you have (Notability is not subjective. Wanting more subjective opinions leads to a bad encyclopaedia.), but merely that British people will be able to locate and to cite the necessary published works more easily. Uncle G 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it is POV. Many people think that a 121 store chain in itself is notable and apparently your POV is that it's not. And in the morning when it's daytime in Britain, we'll see what some British people have to say about that. --Oakshade 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your statement is begging for {{who}} and {{fact}}, and is, quite simply, wrong. The criteria are WP:CORP, and your substitute criterion is arbitrary and systemically biased. Please devote your efforts towards satisfying the WP:CORP criteria, and stop wasting time putting forward criteria that have long since been shown to be fallacious. Uncle G 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Citing the scope of a company is not wasing time and not fallacious. And there's already 2 WP:RS in the article addressing WP:CORP. You don't agree with that. You've said that. --Oakshade 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it featured in the Manchester Evening News [56]. :-) That has some info that the article might like, as well. Skittle 00:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are experiencing firsthand the benefits of focusing on satisfying the WP:CORP criteria. Aim for as much as BETDAQ#References and you'll have made a good case. Uncle G 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Cute, but no. 12 references are not needed for a retail stub. If I had a dime for all the non-contested articles with no references, I'd be Warren Buffett's boss. --Oakshade 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        12 published works will be, as I said, a good case. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BETDAQ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BETDAQ (2nd nomination) demonstrate that this approach is the one to take. The results largely speak for themselves. Moreover "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. You also appear to have completely overlooked our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.
        You've been shown the criteria that apply. Stop making fallacious arguments, and work towards showing that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments, you won't make a case for keeping this article. Uncle G 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop the personal attacks. And you've already said you think there should be 12 references. And citing 2 WP:Reliable Sources (see changes in article) seems to contradict your attack of "completely overlooking" Wikipedia:Verifiability. An apology would be accepted. --Oakshade 02:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You're being overly sensitive. There have been no personal attacks that I have been able to discern. Also Uncle G did not specify 12 references. You made that inference yourself. Ohconfucius 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The user twice cited that BETDAQ AfD with 12 references and actually said "12 published works will be, as I said, a good case." And he repeatedly attacked me for making "fallacious" arguments and having "completely overlooked" Wikipedia:Verifiability when I directly addressed WP:CORP by inserting two WP:RS into the article. He just wouldn't let up in repeating these attacks. We are allowed to cite our opinions. The attacks were unwarranted and, while I don't expect it, the user should apologize. --Oakshade 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (de-indent): If you add more sources, even if they appear to repeat some things there will be differences in their coverage of the topic. By adding as many sources as you can you will be making it easier for anyone who wishes to expand the article in future, and if one source link goes stale the reader can still check others. There is no cap on the number of sources you can include. Kavadi carrier 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update / Comment I erased the ridiculous menu listing and added a very reliable reference. More tweeking will be done. --Oakshade 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable UK high-street cookie provider should meet WP:CORP. Catchpole 07:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the user who nominated this article for deletion. Following the slashing and burning and replacement by Oakshade, I would say that by now we have the beginnings of a worthwhile article about a significant retail chain. Of course, it's all down to what the consensus says now, but I think the article as it now stands is worth keeping. Ringbark 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Catchpole. If this does not meet WP:CORP, then our guidelines are failing us, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 05:56, 9 November 2006
Strong Keep Notable UK brand. Househould name.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GringoInChile 09:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heretaunga College[edit]

Unreferenced, poorly written substub ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its bona fides. Keep it, it needs to be tidied up, say rewritten categorised scope_creep 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel AfD Has there been any attempt to improve the article, to put in references? If these are the only reasons given to delete then there is no reason for this AfD, lets not waste our time!--Mike 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~The reason for this AFD is that the quality of this "article" is right around the level of unsalvageable crap.~~ If you would like to improve it, then please go right ahead. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Salvaged, thanks grutness/truthbringer ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piss-poor article, but verifiable and salvageable - I'll try to improve it a little. Grutness...wha? 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not very good, but better than it was. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fine. --Limegreen 02:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep has a notable alumnus and staff. JoshuaZ 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep afd because it's a stub is absurd. 2nd schools are usually held to be notable. → bsnowball 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of our articles have humble beginnings, the subject is visibly notable. Yamaguchi先生 05:56, 9 November 2006
Keep per Grutness's improvements. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Yomangani ^talk 16:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional worms[edit]

Badly-defined, limitless, list with no real purpose. May be considered listcruft. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an odd list, for sure, but does have some merit, principally because worms have religious meanings in some cultures. scope_creep 23:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious significance in actual cultures does not count as simply "fiction". Tagging articles on religious beliefs as fiction is obviously a non-starter. Bwithh 05:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what it means. Rename it to "List of folkloric, religious, mythological, and fictional worms" if you really feel the need, but to me that seems rather Goldbergian.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate. The Lambton Worm uses the term as synonymous with dragon, a bookworm is not a worm, etc. It's a list of foctional creatures which match a randomly chosen word. Guy 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all the other examples that are very significant and are actual worms that you conviently don't mention, you mean.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a strange list, but it is consistent with the List of fictional (animal) genre of articles, and is potentially useful. Non-worm characters can be easily removed via cleanup. hateless 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Such kinds of "articles" damage wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopedia. --32X 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Anything long is included in this list, and I suspect that when cleanup is done, with only worms that aren't just mentioned as being squished once, the one entry will be "Fip, from The Word Eater". -Amarkov ^babble 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense — there are several entries on the list who are major characters / species in their respective work.--SB | T 07:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial listcruft. The most significant worms are not actually worms, as per Guy Bwithh 05:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good worthy list. --Billpg 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it looks strange at first glance, it's actually part of a series of fictional animal lists. I could certainly see these being useful from a research point of view... for example, if I were writing a kids' book and wanted to include a worm character, I could check this to make sure mine wasn't too similar to any of the existing ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But a lot of them are not actually worms. Guy 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but weeding out the non-worm entries is an editorial decision and does not effect whether the whole article should be deleted. The dragon entries should go (though the list should include a link to Wyrm and the dragon list for the confused. The bookworm entry does not refer to the real-life insect (fictional, remember?) but to the pop-culture bookworm creature, usualy depicted as a green worm with glasses and holding a book. An example can be found in the Tiny Toons animated series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quirky and odd-ball list but works better than putting all these at worm (disambiguation) which is where it would otherwise go. Carlossuarez46 21:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list has value. If something was called a worm then it should go in. Literature and myth should not be bound by modern biological definition. Lumos3 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a good list of worms. If one thinks one doesn't need a list of worms, one may reconsider what one really needs.
Keep as there's no problem with letting this article worm its way into the encyclopedia, whereas deleting would open up a whole new can of worms. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of other pages on this encylopedia about fictional animals. Insane99 15:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - I'm happy to restore the material to userspace if needed, but I don't see why the article would be needed to write something about the organisation in another article. This article is two sentences and a simple statement of what the organisation is, half of which is quoting the organisation's motto. As it stands the article does not even assert notability as required by speedy deletion criteria. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable organization not covered in reliable sources: none cited in the article, Google turns up 89 unique hits [57], none of which is an independent source for establishing notability; Google News gets 0 hits [58]; Google Books turns up 1 hit that mentions this organization, in the "about the author" blurb of a book unrelated to the topic. [59] I contacted the initial editor on his talk page about this. Our conversation can now be found on the article's talk page. JChap2007 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current article per nom. I would, however, be happy to see the content merged into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. The Affiliate article could be expanded from a simple list (of mostly red links) to short desriptions, only the most notable groups should receive individual articles. -MrFizyx 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow HellaNorCal some time to merge the articles. The stubs that don't meet criteria for an article can be made into redirects. -MrFizyx 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be expanded, to demonstrate notability of this particular prganization. If this is not done, then, with rgeret, I agree it is delete-worthy, but this stub looks to me like worth expanding, if I knew anything about the field (non-Unitarian and meat-eater) -- Simon Cursitor 08:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations; see Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That thought had passed through my mind as well. However, Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations is basically just a list. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that it be reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. In addition, such a list may be objectionable to some as listcruft. I would suggest that HellaNorCal, as well as User: Canaen, who I have also been talking too about these Unitarian Universalist Association-affiliate substub articles, direct their attention to improving the articles on those UUA affiliates about which reliable sources have been published, rather than trying to save substubs that basically just serve as links to the organization or turning the list of UUA organizations into a linkfarm. JChap2007 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HellaNorCal and Canaen appear to be the same person. [60] JChap2007 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, as it stands, it is just a list. As well, several articles on that list already have articles on them. I suggest expanding the concept of the article to house content, so it is not simply a list of names. This should serve several purposes. Consolidating information, developing stubs which are not yet ready for their own articles, and making deletionists happy by only having a single article. As you have noted, JChap, CUUPs, one of the UU affiliate organizations, has an article which may have reliable sources. It is reasonable to assume that since one independent affiliate organization has been written of in reliable sources, that others may be found in the future. Closing with a note, I see both JChap and myself are posting this thrice at the three ongoing AfDs about IAOs or the UUA; perhaps this would be simpler if we simply discussed it at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations HellaNorCal 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 importance, hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Guy 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BALEETED![edit]

Delete WP:NOT indiscriminate information, listcruft. The Kinslayer 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No worthwhile info in this article. Wasted a few seconds of my valuable life looking at it. scope_creep 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Cruft. Xdenizen 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy baleete per The Kinslayer. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Forbez[edit]

This webcomic has not been published, has not won any awards and is not distributed through any notable means. As such, it fails WP:WEB. Furthermore, a quick google test shows a total of 554 hits, indicating a lack in notability

For reference, see the first AFD for this article. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Fancruft? Xdenizen 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little actual knowledge. scope_creep 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Sirens[edit]

Fails WP:ORG - insufficient notability to justify an article. Unlike the US, UK university sports have no inherent notability. BlueValour 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. doktorb _words^deeds 07:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven De Lelie[edit]

Article was qualified for speedy deletion under A7, but doesn't qualify, because the notability of this actor is asserted in the plays and in the award(s?). I'm sending it to AfD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non notable actor. scope_creep 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible A7, definite delete. Guy 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, we might want to take a look at Grietje Vanderheijden, which was the other article created by the same account: User:Eveliendorien. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the nom had no opinion, so deleting per nom would in this case be a contradiction in terms. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. I admit to being a little hasty on the draw there. I do believe there's a conflic of interest here considering the original contributer to the article created this and another page. Outside of that, there are no contributions. A google search shows 224 hits suggesting a certain lack of notability. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a Dutchman, I come across many of her programs on Belgian tv. They are sometimes aired on Dutch tv as well (e.g. Spoed). I can assert that Grietje Vanderheijden is notable, although the article about her needs an awful lot of work. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The facts in the article and the reviews cited as references establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep-as per TruthbringerToronto. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Prime Minister's Conference for Export and International Cooperation[edit]

Only one source, Israel News Agency, which is a propaganda outlet not a news agency. No evidence of actual significance. Guy 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a governmental official in Israel does something, it doesn't make that activity notable in and of itself. Are we to suffer articles about the Prime Minister's Luncheon Schedule and Weekly Administrative Meetings as well? This seems like more of a press release than anything else, as the conference is due to begin this date. OfficeGirl 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OfficeGirl. Trebor 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AeM Group[edit]

I speedy deleted this before, it was recreated and tagged for speedy again, and Enochlau untagged it this time. Far be it from me to get into a wheel war, but I still think its intention is to be an ad and it does not satisfy WP:CORP. Chick Bowen 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Consulting company with several hundred consultants, like tens of thousands of others. There are notable consulting companies, like McKinsey or Accenture. This isn't one. (And yes, it's an ad.) Fan-1967 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a directory listing with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory. OfficeGirl 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Xdenizen 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the facts component of this article, providing notabilty and referencing published works.
--paulprout
- Registered editor abt 2.5 days, 2 dozen edits, of which only the last is not focused away from himself and this company. Thus, IIRC, this "Keep" is a Comment, not a vote. Would someone who's checked that policy more recently plz change it (and sign it in small type as modified)?
  --Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe you're referring to the line at WP:DGFA (guideline, not policy) that says ""bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." There's no need to do anything other than point it out, as you've done, and the closing admin will determine consensus accordingly. Chick Bowen 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising, which this clearly is.
--scope_creep 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy was probably justified, IMO, until a familiar editor (34 months & 13K edits) made it controversial by taking exception to that view.
  --Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, one of hundreds of Australian consulting firms no more notable than the next. --Steve 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. N-n, so that none of its content is worth saving even if PP has something non-promotional to add.
--Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Picaroon9288 00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah sandweiss[edit]

Utter nonsense. --FireV 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have flagged this for speedy delete. It is absolute, puerile, idiotic nonsense.--Anthony.bradbury 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Puerile shit. Once again, i've lost valuable seconds looking at crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 November 2006
Speedy delete as pure nonsense. It's not even funny. And they spelled "embrace" wrong. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 23:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Darnell[edit]

notability. No signifigant contributions to the discipline Thamiel 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's well established. scope_creep 00:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And we are to know this how? Please cite sources to demonstrate that this artist satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A Google search shows evidence of exhibitions in Spain [61] and New York City [62], but I need more to demonstrate that the subject is either "widely recognized" or "likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" (per WP:BIO). Give me a review in a reputable art periodical or textbook, and I'll consider WP:BIO and WP:V satisfied. Caknuck 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I couldn't find any reviews, but he's had at least 50 international exhibitions in these countries - England, Spain, France, Hong Kong, Italy, USA, Switzerland and Argentina. oops forgot my sig Roaming27 00:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm close to agreeing with Roaming27 based on the number of exhibitions. However, I also couldn't find any reviews or independant coverage (other than a reference on Darnell's Blanccanvas site that he had been reviewed by a Spanish art critic). Without any reviews or independent coverage I don't know how you go about verifying the information in the article. -Kubigula (ave) 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If his exhibitions made him notable then there would be independent reviews of his exhibitions. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery school[edit]

looks like completely unsupported original research to me —Hanuman Das 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. —Hanuman Das 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a joke piece scope_creep 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Once again: If you actually focus upon doing the research and looking for, reading, citing, and evaluating sources, you'll get the right answer. For examples: You can read about Pythagoras' mystery school on page 41 of ISBN 1592572154. You can read about the several "mystery systems of the Wester Esoteric Tradition" on page 102 of ISBN 0415303524. You can read an opinion of how trustworthy Herodotus is, based upon the assertion that he was inducted in the Egyptian mystery school, on page 179 of ISBN 0887387993. You can read about the Egyptian mystery schools in general on page 338 of ISBN 1417940778. And if you are averse to books for some reason, there is always the (less reputable) World Wide Web.
  Whether this article should stand separate from Mystery religion is another matter. Uncle G 01:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a further look at the article and the reason it should be deleted, as that it has little or no intrinsic knowledge in the article itself. scope_creep 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We call such articles stubs. This article even sports the {{Ancient-Egypt-stub}} tag. Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed we don't delete stub articles that have scope for expansion. Uncle G 02:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates material already found in mystery religion or Eleusinian Mysteries. "School" in this context seems (based on my reading of Uncle G's sources) to be more in the sense of "school of thought" or group of people with a common belief so this is probably unnecessarily duplicative of mystery religion. JChap2007 02:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I couldn't find anything in the sources that indicated a definite distinction between the two, although my opinion is thus merge, per JYolkowski below. Uncle G 10:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mystery religion, reasonable search term even if it does duplicate stuff in that article. JYolkowski // talk 03:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this school does not meet any of the criteria specified by the WP:SCHOOLS standard. As the school is unaccredited, it would need to meet WP:CORP standards, and there seem to be no reliably sourced articles for the school. Furthermore, the school does not seem to have any campus, either in Egypt or Greece That, and it seems to all be unsupported original research. Alansohn 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well of course it doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLS; as mentioned numerous times above, it's a school of thought, like liberalism and capitalism. My vote: Merge into Mystery religion. --Charlene 13:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Mystery religion. Real term. JASpencer 14:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Cryptic 16:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Delalić[edit]

Procedural nomination only. AfD initiated by Thamiel (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if possible, otherwise strong delete absolutely no assertion of notability. Tagged. Only 25 hits for painter "Emir Delalić Zeko " -wikipedia -encyclopedia -forum -blog -wiki -weblog [63] none of which are to reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AfD is not the place to propose merges. Kavadi carrier 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero AX debuted characters[edit]

If we had an article for every time a game series debuts new characters, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles. This is fancruft, plain and simple. This should probably be merged with a F-Zero characters list. RobJ1981 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These characters should be introduced into the original article. Although by the time this is added, the F-Zero article is going to be enormous. scope_creep 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since these were ONLY introduced for the arcade counterpart of F-Zero GX, they may never appear again. However, it will be quite large so I still suggest looking at other Nintendo franchises as examples. FullMetal Falcon 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duflpqy 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If nom is proposing a merge, AFD is not the place for it. I've placed merged tags on the relevant articles. —Mitaphane _talk 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, no support for delete. Also, WP is flooded with articles already, and we seem to quite enjoy it that way. hateless 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AfD is not the place to propose merges. Kavadi carrier 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero X debuted characters[edit]

Another F-Zero fancruft article. Many characters debut all the time, it doesn't mean they should have articles about it. Merge into a F-Zero characters list. RobJ1981 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Same as above, new article every time a game changes, for example by adding a new level. scope_creep 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the time? To name just a few, Legend of Zelda series has much more, Pokemon is going 400+ articles. Between X and GX, only 1 character was introduced. Not to mention this will make the F-Zero pilot list very large and less of a list. I suggest following what was done to the Legend of Zelda characters. By the way, isn't Pokemon Diamond & Pearl coming out next year? Looks like 100+ articles for them! FullMetal Falcon 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Duflpqy 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If nom is proposing a merge, AFD is not the place for it. I've placed merged tags on the relevant articles. —Mitaphane _talk 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, no support for delete. hateless 01:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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