Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 8

< November 7	November 9 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in fighting games[edit]

there are already seperate articles which list a franchise's characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Laurence (talk • contribs) .

Delete. Uncompletably large list. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also think that the list is uncessary due to the characters already being mentioned in their own seperate game articles.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree the list is too large and doesn't serve much of a purpose. If someone needs to find a fighter then they can check the related article. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 03:56, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Chronicles[edit]

Article fails to demonstrate that the series is "widely anticipated" as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books. --Swpb 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal-balling and what seems to be original research. We'll see if it's notable when it comes out in January. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete crystal ball stuff again scope_creep 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline spam, NN, almost vanity publishing --Steve 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The publication date has been posted as well as links to the publishing company's website as well as where you can pre order the book.
Speedy Delete crystal ball, spam, non notable books--Expdkedn 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete crystal ball article. Jcam 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books, crystal ball article.--Dakota 20:41, 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. Not only there's a clear majority for deletion, as the arguments for keeping were hardly any relevant to the policies presented for deletion, namely WP:WEB and WP:V, which the article clearly fails. Sockpuppets and the Pokémon test did not help.--Hús ö nd 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to provide any solid proof for sockpuppets or are we meant to just believe you off hand. If you have evidence of sockpuppets please post it, otherwise it's a dubious move. Douglasnicol 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spacebattles.com[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}}.

Contested PROD with "fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable forum/website, nothing is referenced, no chance of anything being referenced", however it was contested. I wholeheartedly agree with this reasoning. I don't see any reliable independent third party sources, nor do I think there will be any. My googling has not found any as of yet. Fails the Alexa test (~190K), if that happens to be your thing. Doesn't rank highly on Big-Boards either. Delete as failing WP:V and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 01:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just what would qualify as a reference? It is possible for facts to exist without having an outside website to reference them. And SB.com is linked to other websites. The Alexa rating itself isn't Wiki policy and shouldn't be grounds for deletion. And SB.com does rank well on Big Boards when you check things other then the first stats. And it just so happens that SB.com is owned and run by Kier, one of the primary developers of the VB Bulliten Board software. It should be noted that things far less notable have their own pages. Such as individual pages for minor characters in rarely watched TV shows. Alyeska 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Our Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy excludes facts that exist without any outside source. And "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. The infamous Argumentum ad Pokémon has long since been refuted, as shown below. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pokemon Rule, i.e. there is an article for every Pokemon in existence. Also, SB is central to the Star Trek versus Star Wars community. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When you can cite the same range of in-depth sources about this web site that are cited at Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references, you can validly employ that argument. Of course, you will have at the same time cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied, which is the argument that you should be making here (but are not). Until you cite such sources, that argument will not hold water. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you check Big Boards again, you will notice SB.com ranks 307 on the post to members ratio. For its size SB.com is incredibly active. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the 307th forum in activity is not a good thing. I would normally use such a statistic to argue for deletion. --- RockMFR 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just to make sure my opinion is in the open. Alyeska 01:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gotta catch em all, Pokemon!--Kross ^Talk 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of the editors wanting this article kept have presented any valid arguments for doing so. Your weapons are sources, sources, sources, people. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If you don't, and simply continue making fallacious arguments such as the above, you won't make a case for keeping this article. This is not a vote. Arguments based firmly upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are what count. Uncle G 02:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website; Wikipedia is not a web directory for advertising fan sites. Supposed Pokemon "rule" is fallacious. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground.Bwithh 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bwithh. This is simple advertising for a non notable website, which has nothing special associated with it. The pokemon argument is fallacious. The simple fact that some event, and some bit of information has been created or occured, doesn't automatically qualify it for Wikipedia. The event, whatever it is, must have some recognisable intrinisic value. This article doesn't. scope_creep 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who prodded it- I stand by my previous statements. --- RockMFR 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent sources, so fails WP:WEB. A web site's existence and use by a community does not mean it gets a WP article. The website must be notable to someone outside of it's user base. WP is not a replacement for Googling the best place to post about your "thing" --Steve 03:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a lack of reliable sources to verify anything. No indication of meeting WP:WEB. --Wafulz 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anomo 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All Google hits for Spacebattles.com hit WP/Mirrors/their site/random forums. NN fails WP:WEB Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WEB -- wtfunkymonkey 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everyone citing the current rules, care to explain something to me? Stolen Sidekick met your requirements and it got deleted. So apparently your little requirements are a farce. Might as well be truthful here and admit that you would vote deletion regardless because you simply don't want the page. Alyeska 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Uncle G has already covered "If article X then article Y" above. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lack of verification from reliable sources and no assertion of notability during the article's 15 month lifespan point straight to WP:AUTO/WP:COI, original research and a failure to understand what wikipedia is not. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, WP:WEB. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a well known website in the scifi 3D modelling community, and is very popular with even non-modellers who just want to download good looking space movies. Honestly it is a well known and significant site. However having just visited there again (not been there in a while) I didn't realise how unupdated it is these days. Ben W Bell talk 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To Ben W Bell, the original Spacebattles.com website hasn't been updated for a while, but if you google it, you will find that Spacebattles forums are third in the listing. There are many obscure items that are kept in Wikipedia. Douglasnicol 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is "well known and significant" as you state, then it should be easy for you to cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please cite sources. They are your only arguments. Not citing sources isn't going to make a good argument for keeping the article. Neither are bare personal testimonials prefixed with "Honestly". We don't accept "Trust me. I'm a doctor." here. Uncle G 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Google "spacebattles.com", there are 31,900 hits, and the vast majority are from sites other than spacebattles.com. It's referenced from many places on the net, that's a sign of popularity. Ben W Bell talk 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You haven't cited a single source there. You've counted Google hits. Counting Google hits is not research, nor is it a reliable metric of popularity (which isn't the metric for articles on web sites in any event). Once again: Please cite sources. If the subject is "well known and significant" as you state, then this should be easy for you to do. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope, can't find anything. Guess it does fail then. Ben W Bell talk 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An active forum with over two million posts is quite notable. -Toptomcat 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to Big Boards it's currently ranked 383 in the world based on the boards, with almost 3 million posts and over 9,000 members. That seems relatively notable. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Our criteria are WP:WEB, which (quite rightly) make no mention of counting posts. Please cite sources, as has been asked several times already, if you want to make an argument for keeping that actually holds water. Uncle G 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to cite to verifiable independent sources that confirm the importance of this site, as required by our criteria, and previoulsy correctly noted by Uncle G.-- danntm ^T _C 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated previously. CraigMonroe 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gaming Websites usually have articles as ads. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Had you actually bothered to read the website in question you would realize that it is not a gaming website. That you wrote it off by calling it a gaming website shows you voted against it without any attempt to see the truth of the matter. As it stands, I keep hearing people talk about how UncleG got it right. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the Sidekick article which met all the stated requirements got deleted. And knowing that the Sidekick article was deleted regardless of the requirements, why should I even bother with your rules knowing full well that its going to be ignored just like it has in the past? You've killed any respect I once had for Wikipedia policies now that I see how they are being applied in a cherry picking standard where people just remove pages they don't like. Encyclopedia's are supposed to be repositories of knowledge. Not elitist publications that say "No, your not good enough for the people to learn about". Alyeska 04:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are you bringing up another article's supposed improper deletion? That happened almost half a year ago and is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. If you can present sources for the article, go ahead. --Wafulz 05:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am bringing up that article because it demonstrates my complete lack of faith in this current process. Even if the requirements are met, I doubt its going to do any good since it didn't save other articles. Alyeska 06:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I can certainly guarantee that bringing up no sources will ensure deletion. Anyway, random AfDs are not the right place to bring up concerns about process. You'd have better luck here. --Wafulz 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment And just how long do the editors of the article have to rectify the situation? You very well know that providing said sources can be difficult and time consuming even with a favorable set of circumstances. Alyeska 06:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be restored if material is discovered at some point, but its not like this article was just created. Its been sourceless and a violation of WP:V for 1.5 years. Wickethewok 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And its not like anyone was told of this violation and didn't see a need to rectify a problem that was unknown. And do note, it is easier to do then it is to undo. Trying to prevent the article from being deleted appears to be rather difficult. Getting the article restored after its already been deleted is going to be worse. So rather then give the article a chance, its condemned and then deleted making it effectively impossible for the article to even attempt to be fixed because its now in a situation where no editors can do anything to it. Alyeska 07:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its deleted, you can always get a personal copy of it to work on in your user space until its up to WP specs. Think of it like your car getting inspected: if it fails inspection, your car isn't confiscated, its just not allowed to be on the road until it passes inspection. Wickethewok 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Uncle G. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- no matter what opinions are aired, it is clear that the Cabal have made their minds up: discussion is therefore pointless. Alyeska, you will just have to accept that this (space)battle is lost. -- Simon Cursitor 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh, yes, blame the Cabal. Look, it does not meet the requirements we have for an article listing, at WP:WEB. IF you want to save the article, then list -- PRECISELY -- what sources you can add (independant sites, news stories, references from other notable sites) in the article to make it fufill WP:WEB and the deletes will turn to keeps. As it stands, it has no SOURCES. Wikipedia is not a listing of web forums or websites, however much that upsets you, and blaming a non-existant cabal is just .... silly. Furthermore, a lot of your interactions with various users and admins suggests that you seem rarely assume good faith. It's definately bad when you basically say that if we don't agree with what you want, then we're evil. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 19:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, you even have to admit that the AFD came about rather suddenly, there was no notice put up about verifying sources or anything beforehand. Some sort of warning would have been nice, and at least courteous. Instead, the AFD comes up and that gives practically no time to counter it. Douglasnicol 20:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore, that cheapens the AfD process and calls into suspicion the motives of the individual who opened this can of worms in the first place. However, he is a bit of a newbie and therefore I will assume good faith. E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may, but it seems some people just want to delete it out of hand. I'll repeat a 'warning' template giving people time to get the relevant info would be a basic courtesy, instead of just jumping in for a VfD. It shows very poor form if that happens, there should be a template warning of the lack of relevant material and then give it so long to redress that. A sudden VfD is not right. Douglasnicol 22:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains information that is well presented and informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why this needs to be deleted. How is it hurting anyone?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidefever (talk • contribs)
- I don't understand either. It appears to me to be a newbie attempting to curry favor by enforcing rules when it suits him. E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please remain civil, don't make personal attacks, and remember to always assume good faith.--Wafulz 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say it should stay if you aren't planning to go through and evenly apply the rules to the other sites in the category that fail to put up reliable third party references. --MarineTanker

This is not a valid reason to keep an article. --- RockMFR 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, than someone should get cracking on getting all the other unverified pages deleted. Guess I'll have to start the ball rolling. MarineTanker 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear, let me help too. Then I'll just get RockMFR to singlehandedly deal with the giant mess which will doubtless result!! E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's legitimate, go ahead. However, try to remember not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Also, you should note RockMFR is in no way at all obligated to take any part at all in the deletion discussions that you seem adament on creating. --Wafulz 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep is stumbled upon this site, because i read a reference to "i read this on spacebattles" on another forum. I then looked it up on Wikipedia and found an informative article that told me all I wanted to know about "Spacebattles". This is what Wikipedia is all about and is in no way self promotion! So Keep!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.227.240 (talk • contribs)
- That is not at all what Wikipedia is all about- Wikipedia is not a primary source of information. --Wafulz 05:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Actually all it says about being a primary source is Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a primary source for news reports. No harm in Wikipedia being a primary source for other items. Ben W Bell talk 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep So what you're saying is that we should not look to Wikipedia for information? Because that was what he said he was doing, and you just stated that that was the wrong way to utilize this page. Also, nobody has yet said that providing sources will prevent deletion. Thus it seems rather fucking pointless to the people who made this site. Italic textAnd it's not even self promotion.Italic text So there's no reason to delete it neither, save for the does not cite it's sources thing, which should be warned of first, which it wasn't neither, and isn't even a guarantee because now, it suddenly isn't influential enough. Unlike the aforementioned Bulbasaur article. To put it this way, the ones who argue for deletion cite a flaw, and then nominates for deletion. Then they inform the writers that providing sources won't save it because it isn't noticeable enough. Then the writers are informed that articles of less note, that should also be deleted won't be, because, well.. Because. And nominating those articles for deletion because they violate the same rules that are almost being followed, are Italic textdisrupting wikipedia. And any complaints about this are completely irrelevant for some reason. Which is for some reason not intellectual dishonesty? So remember people if your article is deleted, don't list other articles up for deletion for the very same reason, especially if they qualify for deletion... Anyway, what you guys who want to delete are saying is that it's getting deleted because it isn't verified, right? And that if we add sources that verifies things, it won't help anyway and it is not worthy enough and it's self advertising and so on. Then someone comes in and argues your point, and points out unfair treatment, and thus get's slapped with a giant fish slapping dance version of "that's not relevant to the debate"... HaakonKL 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs cleanup, but doesn't really violate any Wikipedia policies. --JaceCady 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, it violates many policies... --- RockMFR 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted at this point that WP:WEB is just a set of guidelines that have been drafted by users, it's not a policy. Policy and guideline on Wikipedia are extremely different things. Ben W Bell talk 07:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Enumerate them all, please. E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are extentions of policies, in order help judge whether an artilce meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR a little more quickly. Regardless, no such evidence related to these policies has been presented. --Wafulz 17:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No evidence is presented in the article to establish the notability of this forum. It even states that more than 70% of the forum's posts have been created by a small amount of people. The Alexa rank is also quite weak. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WillyWonty 22:53, 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.

Comment And now I want a copy of the page as promised by other people in this discussion and the admin. I want the copy located at the following location. User:Alyeska/Spacebattles.com Alyeska 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As do I. User:E. Sn0 =31337=/Spacebattles.com You know the drill. E. Sn0 =31337= ^{Talk to me :D} 06:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that copy of the Spacebattles page that I was promised by nearly every person who contributed to this vote? I quite litteraly need a copy because I do not have a copy on my hard drive. Alyeska 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Dakota 04:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 largest cities in Nevada[edit]

Do we need it? It's unneeded WP:LC. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nevada already contains a list with the 10 largest cities in that state, expand that list if it's that necessary. Furthermore, I couldn't find any other states with such separate lists.--Hús ö nd 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a similar list here: Nevada#Important_cities_and_towns. No need for a merge or redirect. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom. scope_creep 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet a CSD? TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - soon to come, the 19th largest cities in nebraska and 17.5th largest cities in nebraska. Chris Kreider 03:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Nevada" and "20" both being arbitrary --Steve 03:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's also a List of cities in Nevada --Steve 03:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Husond. Based on this list, it appears that Nevada doesn't have 20 cities that could be considered "large". --Metropolitan90 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this list, it appears that Nevada doesn't have 20 cities that could be considered "cities". Fan-1967 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary listing. Based on this list, it appears that Nevada doesn't have 20 cities. --Wafulz 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Ultra-Loser WikiBot 04:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NUKE THIS IMMEDIATELY!--MonkBirdDuke 06:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. More nonsense to come soon. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 13:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list, since list in article Nevada is much better. Jcam 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely redundant to Nevada article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nevada article is sufficient enough, no need for an extra list.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. Does Nevada even have 20 cities? 23skidoo 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. Delete. Vegaswikian 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. --Folantin 19:29, 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 deleted as redundant (to War of the Gods) as requested by the article's creator – Gurch 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Gods (Part 1)[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you're going to delete that, you'll also have to delete everything else on the List of Battlestar Galactica (1978-1980) episodes. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you actually have a reason for taking all of these articles to AfD? Resolute 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kappa has been deprodding stuff, and once something is deprodded it needs to go to AfD for consensus. Yanksox 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not aware of such a provision, and I can't seem to find an automatic AFD clause in WP:PROD. In any case, shouldn't the rationale of the old prod be restarted in the afd? hateless 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Articles can be expanded. Wavy G 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all? There's one article here. Yanksox 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. Ultra-Loser (great name) commented that if this article is going to be deleted, then all other episodes of this series would need to be deleted (and why would one episode of a list of episodes be nominated without any of the others being nominated anyway?). I was prematurely stating, in that case, keep them all. Wavy G 02:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, let's get something straight. Did you read the article? It's one sentence, it doesn't add anything at all. You can have a list and nominate stuff later on that doesn't meet notability. But for now, just think about this article. Yanksox 02:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, my name rules. Anyways, I've thought this over, and I've decided to vote delete, for this article and every other article in the list - unless someone can expand them considerably within the next five days. Right now they're just wasting space on the wikipedia servers and degrading the quality of this encyclopedia. Anyone who comes to this article looking for information will likely just be disappointed. I dig the spoiler warning over the "this article is a stub" sentance, by the way. Very useful. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I read it, and I then went to the episodes list and glanced at a couple other episodes. They appear to be mostly one sentence articles, but that's why I made the comment that articles can be expanded. I've never seen the show, but I know it has a huge fanbase. Surely someone can expand it. I'd hate to see Wikipedia become lopsided in its content, excluding content on older shows, while current shows like My Name is Earl and Office have entire in-depth synopses of every single episode. Just my thoughts. Wavy G 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Maybe it would be more useful to have all of the one-liner articles merged into a list while retaining the blurb descriptors and then linking that list back to the main article? I can see why we should keep the material in as much as we keep a lot of pop culture, but a load of 1 line articles isn't really what we want unless they will someday each grow into something more than a stub. Robovski 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and other Battlestar Galactia episodes unless someone expands them beyond 1 line before the AFD closes. IF these are kept, then merge this with part 2 as is tradition (look at Star Trek, 2 part episodes have 1 article). TJ Spyke 02:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It should be kept but single line articles like this have no intrinsic value. They are also a pain to navigate to, and elevate what should be a bullet point in a main article detailing all episodes, to one which has a full page given to it. Its simply a waste of resources. We need some policy on this scope_creep 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. The show may deserve an article, but single episodes do not. --John Nagle 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You might want to look around - there are plenty of articles on single episodes of various TV series in Wikipedia. The precedent has been set. 23skidoo 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, substub one-line articles. If someone wants to do an expansion, they can always recreate. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many thousands of TV episodes that have pages on Wikipedia, do you suggest we delete them all? Some of them are even less significant than Battlestar Galactica. Needs expanding but keep, no reason it can't stay on here. Ben W Bell talk 14:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. The correct argument is that Wikipedia should reflect the sources that exist in the world at large. We justify articles on individual episodes from series like Babylon 5 and Star Trek not because "other shows have them", but because we can point to web sites, articles, and even entire books where people have documented, commented upon, and analysed such television series at the levels of the individual episodes. If you wish to make a similar case for this television series, please point to equivalent web sites, scholary articles, or books for this series that provide the requisite amount of source material for supporting an individual encyclopaedia article on this individual episode. Uncle G 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The big problem with this (and the others) is that they are sub-stubs. I have put a message on the original author of this article(and other BG episode articles) urging him to expand the articles(he/she appears to be active). Hopefully, they (or someone else will expand). Jcam 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original author here. Oy, vey, give me a break, okay? First thing was to create the article, put in all the infobox information, link it all, and then pad it out. For any article this is a drawn out process and part of this is that the whole thing IS supposed to be collaborative, right? Having the article is supposed to invite editing and improvement, right? The article's less than a week old, have a coffee and wait to see how long it's been before you go and do something like this... Now... I have to have another yelling match with someone over naming conventions. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to War of the Gods (Battlestar Galactica). —Cryptic 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Cryptic. -Toptomcat 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Part 1 and Part 2 to War of the Gods (Battlestar Galactica) per Cryptic. And rename to part 1 and part 2, respectively. --Steve 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, since two-part episodes are generally treated in a single article (see Who Shot Mr. Burns). And I think it's fair to have articles on the other individual episodes; there's at least one book out there that analyzes every episode of the series, and I'm sure there are some fansites out there, as well. Give 'em time to grow. Zagalejo 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a separate B-star-wiki ? If so, send it there; if not, get one of the knowledgeable to expand this (It was only created a week ago (!) and then keep. Unless you want *every* episode of *every* series nominated for deletion (not a threat, but would it not be a legitimate Willy-On-Wheels ?) -- Simon Cursitor 14:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Strong keep but expand, of course. The precedent has already been set for episodes of TV shows of all types of have their own articles -- if this one is deleted there are literally hundreds of other articles that would need to be so. Even if one were to apply the "is the show culturally notable enough to justify this?" argument, BSG would qualify. My comments on episodes stand, but I wasn't aware that an article on the two parter already existed, so a redirect is fine by me. 23skidoo 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been superceded by War of the Gods.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:59, 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 13:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Covington[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable character, similar to the doctor, in yesterdays aFD scope_creep 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does teaching courses in the history of architecture and design make you notable? WikiBot 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above.--SU I T ⁴² 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is often a sign of notability, and I added bibliographic information about a book he wrote. On the other hand, this seems to have been the only book that he wrote. I wasn't able to find out much about him. A google search for covington site:thersa.org didn't yield any results. He seems to have retired in 1992 according to this reference, which could explain some of the difficulty finding verifiable references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Howrealisreal 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do see this person asserting some notability, looks notable. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A full professor at a major university is about at the threshold for sufficient notability, but I would expect him to be an editor of major journals, to have a long list of publications and textbooks written, to have received awards to have designed important structures, and to have had notable students. The material is probably there, but I expect the editor creating the article just worked from one minimal source.Edison 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is often a sign of notability as TruthbringerToronto commented. Nileena joseph 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per TruthbringerToronto. bbx 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, as it seems pointless relisting this for more participation when this isn't really a deletion issue. Anyone is free to merge and redirect without AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadius[edit]

Contested PROD Yanksox 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with following the advice of WP:FICT, not bringing this to AFD at all, and merging this character to List of Klonoa villains, which clearly has room for expansion? Uncle G 02:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree, the character is already detailed in original article. There is no need for single cast or character articles like this scope_creep 02:55, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Gigantes[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a bona fide resort, place and has notable history scope_creep 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep no reason to delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article refers to "Los Gigantes" as being a resort, but it's the primary name of some remarkable cliffs in the area (info here).--Hús ö nd 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewritten to shift subject from resort to cliffs.--Hús ö nd 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better after rewrite, notable subject, verified (although it's only one source). Definite keep. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also, there are lengthy articles on both the NL Wiki and DE Wiki which would be useful to be translated for this article. Some of the information I was using was from them. Computerjoe 's talk 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This isn't really all that notable, but there may be room for expansion, so I am going a weak keep on this. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Places are notable. Computerjoe 's talk 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only a notable geographical feature, but it's an actual town. [1] --Oakshade 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see any reason for deletion, it is a quite important town for tourists and sailors. --Pschrey 11:59, 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 MERGE into a separate section in Cledus T. Judd. There was enough of a merge desire voiced to sway me to making the least-destructive close, which is Merge rather than Delete. I did add a {{sources}} to the new section. Inclusion of the squirrel song in the Judd overloads that short article a bit with squirrel-song material... so it's not ideal. But I didn't see enough of a consensus or argument to outright delete it. Herostratus 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Had To Die[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article should be merged into Cledus T. Judd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
Conditional Merge per above, if we can find some proof that he actually wrote the song and some basic info about it. I can only find 3 hits for it on google, and none of them have information like the year it was written. If we can't find that info, delete. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his discography doesn't mention it. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Not in Gracenote. --John Nagle 04:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure this is notable enough for its own article; perhaps if valid, merge into the Cledus T. Judd article. Y control 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent evidence that this song is significant enough to deserve a mention, it should be deleted outright.-- danntm ^T _C 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn notable, not listed in Cledus T. Judd [2] discography.--Dakota 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the correct name of this article is "Goodbye Squirrel" (makes sense, since the song it parodies is "Goodbye Earl"), which does appear on the Cletus T. Judd album Just Another Day in Parodies. Whether it is notable or not is another story... Wavy G 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Suggest merge into Cledus T. Judd. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:03, 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. It seems persuasive that as this isn't a character, as in someone that actually appeared in the show, it shouldn't be merged into a list of characters. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Nagala[edit]

Contested PROD. Yanksox 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Do we really need individual characters from the television series cast to have their own Wikipedia article. scope_creep 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a character, it's a single REFERENCE in a couple lines of dialogue. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a perfectly good and well-run Battlestar Galatica wiki, which I salute. If only more fans had the gumption to set up their own wiki rather than trying to colonize wikipedia. This level of crufty detail doesn't belong on Wikipedia and doubly so when there's a more appropriate alternative Bwithh 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT or keep. Kappa 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article says this character was merely briefly mentioned in an episode, but never actually appeared in any episode. Bwithh 03:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect if appropriate, definitely not important enough for own article. Seraphimblade 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just so we are clear here, this is a "character" on a television show that has never appeared in said show and never will. The name is mentioned exactly two times in the entire series, both times in the miniseries that served as a pilot. This character is in no way important or significant, and the reference above to WP:FICT is laughable for this reason. People should really do some research before randomly going around and deprodding things. Indrian 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Indrian. Wavy G 05:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, period/full stop. Nothing to merge in any way. And per Indrian, people should think before deleting prod tags. --Calton | Talk 07:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails even WP:FICT soundly. Kavadi carrier 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to meet any criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even as a major Battlestar fan, a article on a character only given passing mention in the miniseries does not need her own article.-- danntm ^T _C 17:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI am sure there is a list of battlestar characters that this could be placed in.CraigMonroe 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much I like BSG, having an article for a character who never appeared and only mention briefly is not wikiworthy. ScottM 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nicholas Tyrol into a List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (2003). Then we can also expound on Shevon, Paya the crime lord, etc. 70.51.11.183 06:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I'm a big BSG fan, however this character is not article worthy.. maybe even not mention worthy tbh. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (2003). JoshuaZ 01:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Indrian. Character is barely mentioned. Does not qualify even as an important unseen character. Monsieurxander 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda Zisapel[edit]

Prod removed without explanation, so sending to AfD. Very promotional in tone (and to the subject's corporation rather then the subject), also may be a copyvio (a release was promised on the talk page but nothing further has been done). The bare assertions of notability speak more to subject's corporation then subject (and even that is unclear and largely unsourced), so recommend deletion. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an advertisement, and without merit. Where is the knowledge scope_creep 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, the promotional tone in this article is in no way subtle.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur -- the balance reads as Corporation-cruft smuggled in as bio-cruft. Absent proven notability outside the limited tech frame, this ought to go. -- Simon Cursitor 14:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Dear people, calm down, this article was posted by novice users who do not know how things go in Wikipedia. You are of course right about your points, and I am working to totally revise the article. Patience please. Thanks. —comment added by John Hyams^(t/c) 16:39, 30 April 2024 UTC [refresh]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, a7, g12. - Bobet 11:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Johnson Rock And Roll Machine[edit]

Non-Notable, Vanity. Seems to have been created by Mr. Johnson himself? Gilgamesh Rex 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Bedroom musician writing a Wikipedia bio? scope_creep 02:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the Userpage and it certainly seems to be... Gilgamesh Rex 02:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've done a lot of things in my bedroom too, that doesn't mean they're notable. Wavy G 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per the obvious -- wtfunkymonkey 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from here. So tagged. MER-C 08:43, 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. Dakota 04:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead nigger storage[edit]

Well, this was PROD'ed; however, we could vote though.

Redirect to Pulp Fiction since it describes a scene where somebody says "dead nigger storage". --Clarenceville Trojan 03:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the obvious. It's an implausable search term, so I don't see the value of a redirect. hateless 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect We don't need articles or redirects for one-time in-"jokes" Bwithh 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pulp Fiction article, ONLY if the sources are available, otherwise Delete scope_creep 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just did a google test of the phrase. So, now I change my vote to keep since we have 13K+ google hits. --Clarenceville Trojan 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most or even all of those hits appear to be referencing the phrase from the movie as part of a quote or a weak jokey pop culture reference. Hard to see how this amounts to an encyclopedia article Bwithh 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an article: it's a phrase from a movie. I performed the exact same Google test linked above, and I see around 900 hits. Many are just quotes from the movie, not discussions about it. Joyous! | Talk 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a collection of quotes and jokes from movies. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect, obscure reference that's not likely to be confused with the movie itself. Seraphimblade 04:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. There is no material worth making an article here. OfficeGirl 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best (and with a huge assumption of good faith) this is fancruft, at worst this is blatant vandalism. Either way, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could understand if this phrase had caught on in pop-culture, like "Where's the beef?," or "I pity the fool," but honestly, this isn't even one of the more memorable lines from that film! It's just a random phrase in the movie, and there is nothing remotely encyclopedic about it. Wavy G 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncyclopedic. Non notable. Also per RoySmith's comment. ~ Feureau 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take this to dead article storage per nom. Kavadi carrier 10:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not here please, Wikipedia is not your neologism guide. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin:, when you delete this, don't forget to also rollback this edit. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins don't tend to do the clean up, the contributors to an AfD are the supposed experts. And in this case the edit has already been reverted --Steve 23:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. I remember this was in current usage for perhaps a month after Pulp Fiction came out... Jcam 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikiquote? -Toptomcat 17:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing more than a line from a movie... Could be moved to Wikiquote though.--Isotope23 18:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relatively unmemorable line from a single movie is not notable. No need to redirect.-- danntm ^T _C 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikiquote. 69.254.104.197 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Riverbend 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Pulp Fiction (film) you'll find a link to the existing Wikiquote article. If you follow that link and look at the Wikiquote article, you'll find the actual quotation in its entirety, already there. It has been there since July 2005. Uncle G 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to go on here besides being mentioned in one movie. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pulp Fiction, as the title suggests a racial slur and the article itself is pointless. Random th e Scrambled ^(?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it seems to be one of the funniest scenes in the movie. --Nisa's Grand Am 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pulp Fiction. It is a very memorable line. Note this AfD has sockpuppet voting, it won't affect the outcome. SchmuckyTheCat 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who in particular do you suspect of being a sockpuppet? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 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 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 16 Catamaran Design[edit]

This looks like it is intended to be a how-to guide and discussion group for the design and construction of a particular class of catamaran. I prodded this and suggested WikiHow on the talk page but user found it unsuitable. Because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, I am nominating for deletion. --Dgies 03:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is still been written. Give it a week or three, and then see if its up for Afd scope_creep 03:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this isn't an appropriate use of the encyclopedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a how-to guide or discussion forum which exactly how this article is shaping up. Giving it a week or three will just add more of what wikipedia not not. -- Whpq 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this isn't encyclopaedic. Ben W Bell talk 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The context of the article page reads like a talk page. As stated above, the article does not sound encyclopedic.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:26, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moc Moc (band)[edit]

Unremarkable group Missvain 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Remarkably non remarkable band. scope_creep 03:32, 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 and recast as a Redirect to Florida congressional elections, 2006. That article has basically the same info regarding her run for Congress as this article - in fact, more. The TV personality stuff by itself appears not to convey sufficient notability, and no strong claim was advanced that it does. Herostratus 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samm Simpson[edit]

2006 candidate for Florida's 10th COngressional District. Not notable unless being the only Florida Federal level candidate to qualify by collecting signatures makes her notable. She is also the host of a local cable talk show (lived here 35 years and never heard of it) that gets

23 unique of 58 total google hits, not all relevant for "Media Is Propaganda" +Simpson.
I get 356 unique out of 35,000 total Google hits for "Samm Simpson" Most of these deal with her candidacy.
3 hits on google news for Samm Simpson.
28 hits in SPTimes archives compare with(My alternate user gets 67)
3 SPTIMES archive hits for "Media Is Propaganda" All related to her candidacy. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (Failed) candidacy for office isn't enough to make her noteworthy per WP:BIO, nor is involvement in local TV. Being the only federal candidate to qualify through signatures in her state would be good to include if she did rate an article, but I don't think that's enough to put her there. Shimeru 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Maybe merge some of the info somewhere else - although, to be honest, I haven't found a place where it would be appropriate. Something to consider though... —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If she'd come a bit closer to winning, I'd volunteer to create a campaign article for the FL-10 race, and then suggest a merge/redirect; but that's not the case here. John Broughton | Talk 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The whole "being the first federal candidate in Florida to ever qualify through signature petitions" thing and the media attention she received is barely enough, in my opinion, to make her notable. I found 45 newspaper articles in 2006 mentioning her (NewsBank). Some really detail her campaign ("Signatures, not fees, might get her into race". St. Petersburg Times. March 29, 2006) extensively. -newkai t-c 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per above, plus she's a radio personality. At the least, let's not lose her info, and put it somewhere (e.g., Florida congressional elections, 2006) -- Sholom 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: done. John Broughton | Talk 07:47, 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. --Core desat 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maid in Akihabara[edit]

per WP:NN/WP:NF. Zqhenz 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)— Zqhenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

It's been fansubbed, if that counts for anything. [3] --humblefool ® 05:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a verifiable Japanese TV series, what's non-notable about it? Ben W Bell talk 15:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qlllr 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to lack of any argument to delete; even if we accept lack of notability as a reason for deletion (which many do not), it's surely not too much to expect nominators to explain why they think a given subject is so non-notable that it should not be included! — Haeleth Talk 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Shimeru has provided the missing argument, so withdrawing my procedural vote. No vote, but would suggest searching Japanese news sites in case the series got media mentions that would establish notability. — Haeleth Talk 11:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real television series, decent article stub. Would people please realize that just because an article is a stub does not mean it must be nuked? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's not a television series per se, it's a short series of webcasted episodes. Not certain whether the parent site, netvision.tv, is widely popular. This article is the only netvision series article to exist on Wikipedia. It's unsourced (except for netvision's site) and partially untranslated. It fails WP:WEB if no evidence to noteworthiness can be produced. I don't find anything in English, but there may be something in Japanese. Shimeru 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing my vote; those sources are good enough for me. Shimeru 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems a popular enough series in Japan. Japan Today ran a story on it, but unfortunately the page has expired so that's no good. It has been released on DVD and is readily available (don't know about sales yet). Had an article featured in RBB Today, a popular Japanese technology site. Has a short news article on the Japanese Sony Music animation news site (halfway down, 2nd December). Article on Rakufilm a moderately popular Japanese movie news site. Features in the lineup of the Toei Company, a sizable and popular Japanese movie and TV company. Ben W Bell talk 12:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It provides real information about something one might actually have a question about. As a stub, I think a single reasonable source is not bad. Why get rid of it?

--Erk 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, interesting TV series staring a relatively well known J-pop singer.

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

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

The result was delete. There's nothing to merge. Proto::type 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in physics[edit]

Original research Steve 03:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-encyclopedic essay. hateless 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could stand up for an article along the lines of Notable Women in Physics - but this seems to read like a lifted web or print article related to the "list of 83 women". Maybe some of this could be fitted into sexism maybe in relation to gender bias in the workplace or in career choice. Robovski 04:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, original research. This is not an article, rather, it reads like a school report. Wavy G 04:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is sourced (though poorly cited) from source that deal with the exact subject matter. To suggest the article is unencyclopaedic is farcicle, and to suggest that it's OR is transparently false. Sure, the article needs style improvement, but needs style improvement is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's a criterion for improvement. WilyD 14:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From the tagged version of the article: "The answer, in the lack of scientific evidence of cognitive differences, convincingly lies..." That, my "farcicle" friend, is a thesis, a no-no in this encyclopedia. You may have faith that an essay can be merely massaged back into an acceptable NPOV article, but I don't. hateless 21:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article no longer says that - suggesting we delete articles based on what they used to say is pretty rediculous. WilyD 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A essay was written to support one conclusion. It's supports, structure, tone, etc. is all used to support that one conclusion. I am not convinced you can just tweak one aspect of this article, its tone, and can confidently say its no longer an essay. Its a cosmetic cover-up, and frankly, you're being ridiculous if you can't see it needs to be totally rewritten. Perhaps you would want to keep the article intact and replace its foundation from underneath it, that's your opinion. My opinion is to demolish the article first before rebuilding. Unless of course, you still deny it's an essay, which would be an actual farce. hateless 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It really isn't. Have you read the most recent version of the article? The issue of women in physics being underrepresented is one that's studied, talked about, whatever. See: [4] [5] for instance. It's clear that the original writer of the article let their own opinions slip in, but the article is no longer an essay, nor does it really flawlessly represent a neutral point of view (though it probably does as well as an average article). But the problems with it don't mandate deletion, but improvement. They're not that severe. The foundations are fine, just the paint needed to go. Which it already has. The deletion policy specifically lists Article is biased or has lots of POV as a Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. The point is clear: There's no reason to delete the article. There's no rational for deleting the article. It deals with a verifiable, encyclopaedic subject in an incomplete but reasonable way. Sure, it needs expansion, but the response to an article that needs to be expanded is not to delete it but to expand it. WilyD 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not convinced. I've read the article as it was, as it is, and in my opinion (if you choose to accept it or not) the effort to save it is foolish. The topic is better served as a section of Women in science. hateless 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So you want to delete the article for reasons wholly unrelated to the article? That's a pretty weak argument, as far as I can see. WilyD 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that some people would like to dump this entry is an example of the gender bias that this entry illustrates. November7 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably not fair - they're likely just unaware that it is an issue of significant interest and study. I've been to a talk on the issue of Women in Astronomy, but that's probably the exception, not the rule. WilyD 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes,of course. Being unaware that you are sexist excuses all. November7 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure this comment makes sense. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? WilyD 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Ever heard of good faith? I don't like the assertion that I'm sexist because I reccommend the deletion of a poorly written article. The subject of gender bias itself is notable (and is a re-direct to sexism) but this article isn't purporting to be about that subject but rather doesn't seem to go anywhere. The last paragraph reads more like a press release pointing to some information. Re-write to something useful and I'll be happy to change my opinion. Robovski 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The gender ratios of women in physics are a notable and well-documented subject; however, this article is badly written and goes nowhere as it stands. To counter a rational argument for deletion with sniping and personal attacks is an indication of the same mindset that rejects women from physics based on emotion and image, rather than considering fairly their merits. My vote below is to merge this article with Women in science and actually say something coherent about the content of the recent publications referenced in the article. --A woman in physics, HEL 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Women in science - Stammer 16:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an AfD ought to be a discussion about deleting the page rather than the content. If the page is a "non-encyclopedic essay" then it can be improved and there is no fundamental problem with the page so it shouldn't be deleted unless it fails to improve --Mike 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article's non-neutrality is a major issue, however I do not think it immediately fits into an AfD article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a sufficient range of sources to hand for a subject, neutrality is mainly a cleanup issue. The cases where non-neutrality is a deletion issue are usually when the topic itself is inherently non-neutral. Even then, renaming and refactoring into a neutral topic can sometimes be a way to solve the problem. Uncle G 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion hidden behind generic phrase. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Women in science, and rewrite to bring it up to the quality and NPOV-ness needed. HEL 19:33, 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 CSD, fails WP:MUSIC Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wretched[edit]

Unimportant and unremarkable music group Missvain 03:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nn-band if possible, else delete. Seraphimblade 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 05:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Wafulz 05:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Kavadi carrier 10:36, 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. Dakota 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplisticity[edit]

0 ghits for this, either hoax or completely made up. Seraphimblade 04:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax, or very-neo --Steve 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most likely a hoax. WikiBot 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indeed probably a hoax. --Nehwyn 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a hoax article, can't find many ghits on this word... --SunStar Net 23:07, 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. --Ixfd64 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)[edit]

Non-notable mall, not even defunct. John Nagle 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this article was created because the mall appeared on a list of "dead malls". But it's not a dead mall; it's alive, with open stores, although in decline. See talk page. It's just another non-notable shopping mall, though. --John Nagle 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 04:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John Nagle 04:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Wikipedia not being the Yellow Pages and all. --Calton | Talk 07:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 10:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see why this mall asserts notability in anyway. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 14:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Little Rock, Arkansas per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Little Rock, Arkansas per WP:LOCAL should be the path of least resistance. Yamaguchi先生 05:42, 9 November 2006
Deleteper nom. There is nothing notable about this mall. I'm not even sure it meets verifiability even before we get to notability. JoshuaZ 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, maybe a one line mention in the badly written shopping part of the little rock article but doesn't deserve a complete merge, I'm not a big fan of using WP:LOCAL with large cities nither, only on small or medium sized towns. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does anyone really need to go to an encyclopaedia for this information? --Folantin 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claim that this business (yes, malls are in the business of renting space to retail establishments) meets WP:CORP. I'm not convinced that WP:LOCAL should be anything more than an essay, but at the very least only verified content should ever be merged, and this entire article is either original research (second sentence) or contradicted on the talk page (first sentence). So there is nothing to merge. GRBerry 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability: burn outright with lots of fire. Moreschi 22:37, 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 speedy delete (a7), random dicdef created to get around speedy deletion, but the article is still about a nn website. - Bobet 11:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phone bombing[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Looks sort of like a website promotion. And no articles link to it. Anomo 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shall we go through the motions of saying that this is completely unsourced, a promotion of a website that is nonnotable, some kind of a sick joke, etc., or shall we just refer to the FAQ page of the website being promoted: Q: Isn't this illegal? A: Yes. OfficeGirl 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is spam, and even this [6] shows it to fail WP:NEO --Steve 05:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete subtle CSD A7 about external link. Tagged. Kavadi carrier 10:34, 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. Dakota 04:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L3 LANs[edit]

Self-promotion/Conflict of interest and notability. Also in the thread [7], they laugh at the fact that they have an article present on wikipedia for such a low numbered community (100 ppl). Lincher 04:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete "those wiki people are gonna catch on eventually..." Indeed. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. — Moondyne 04:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. I'm catching on, and so are others of "those wiki people." OfficeGirl 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "LAN dollar"? WikiBot 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event is not well-known/notable enough to qualify as a Wikipedia article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting, but without citations to respectable independent sources to verify its notability, I have to say Delete.-- danntm ^T _C 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not notable; vainity. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; probably a db-group wouldn't have been inappropriate. On the verge of WP:SNOW early AfD closure. --Nehwyn 18:34, 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. --Ixfd64 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Buonopane[edit]

Candidate for state office, otherwise non-notable (a law student/department manager). Only refs are from candidate/party sites. Calton | Talk 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability. Article can be recreated if and when he's elected. Caknuck 05:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - election candidates aren't notable unless elected. MER-C 08:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per above. WillyWonty 23:00, 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. --Ixfd64 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Fashion Fair[edit]

Seems like an excuse to collect linkspam and little else. A single incoming link: Vintage clothing, which should suffice. — Moondyne 04:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--SU I T ⁴² 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not very notable, the 774 ghits don't show signs of verifiability either. MER-C 08:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thinly disguised link farm, and no sources for verfiability. -- Whpq 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam. Nuttah68 13:03, 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 CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 08:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Aces Paintball[edit]

Unsourced article about a paintball team. Only contribution of its author. Peter O. (Talk) 04:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article -- wtfunkymonkey 05:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Del per above. Grutness...wha? 05:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:51, 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 CSD G4 -- Samir धर्म 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Wu[edit]

I found this article in speedy-delete patrolling. The subject appears to not exist and is non-notable as a fictional character. Note that the previous AfD was closed early and the article speedy-deleted under CSD:G1 (patent nonsense), which does not apply to fictional entries. If the previous AfD had run its course I could have applied G4 (reposted content), but I could find no applicable speed-deletion criteria so I'm sending it to AfD. In my humble opinion (and after trying to track down this subject, real or fictional, and failing), the article should be deleted. EDIT: note that the photo of the "most respected character" is actually of Bert Williams. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the name of the character doesn't set off warning bells, nothing will. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this junk. --humblefool ® 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt (G4) Article has been deleted & recreated 5 times in the last month or so. Also check the deletion logs for the "characters" Smegmer Kennington, Richard Carney, Brad Noland and Larry Fish. Caknuck 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. And check Current Sml, which I think he created this under earlier today. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:56, 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 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big o and dukes[edit]

A radio duo; however, the links in the article appear to be connected with the subject and not external sources. Peter O. (Talk) 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 661 ghits, not much else except the promo stuff, though it brings up the possibility of more deletable material. MER-C 09:01, 8 November 2006 (

Dont delete: Why the hell would you delete this? There are plenty of wiki's for radio shows. don't listen to these haters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs)

Comment Err... we're not hating. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, it is, after all, a friendly AFD discussion. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Seems to be a local radio show - not notable. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:07, 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. --Ixfd64 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of production hybrids[edit]

Page is mostly a copy of Production hybrid vehicles, otherwise gibberish. Brianhe 05:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - material duplicates another page, and there is no real comparison in this article -- Whpq 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, no need for duplicates on Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphan, & per nom. Mr Stephen 12:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate article not needed. WillyWonty 23:02, 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 - no prejudice agaimnst recreating as an actual, you know, article. Proto::type 11:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 in Turkish football[edit]

2006-07 in Turkish football (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

I don't think an unsourced list of (only) foreign players in one season of Turkish football merits its own article, as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, although if anyone wants to wikify and merge this somewhere, they are welcome to it. Deprodded by Kappa without a reason given. Sandstein 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with a massive cleanup and expansion required by someone a lot more knowledgeable about the subject. There are similar articles on seasons in English football, which is not of itself a reason to keep this one, but it's a reason at least to see what should be added. See this example, for instance. As a bare list of foreign players, it's an indiscriminate collection of information. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete My eyes are melting! The article may be able to be saved, but there are going to have to be some reliable sources and adhere to WP:NOR. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current content because it is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it verified. No prejudice against an actual article that may appear in the future. GRBerry 16:06, 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 delete. Glen 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombienose[edit]

Contested Prod. Non notable author of non notable book: author plus title gives 17 distinct Google hits, mostly from author's site, myspace, and amazon[8]. Fails WP:BIO Fram 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Let the author remain unknown if he so chooses. wtfunkymonkey 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my God, I LOVE articles like this--an "unknown author" of three not-yet published books; all sources point to "www.zombienose.com"; and the article ends with a special "Thank you" to his fans from Zombienose himself! What more can I say? Wavy G 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not notable - seems like a rambling blog post to me. No assetion of notability. Possibly WP:BIO as the person who's supposed to be the subject of this article even signed the article itself. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:02, 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. --Ixfd64 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviatus[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, Obviatus has less than 100 distinct Google hits[9], Obviatus + "short of the sun" returns one myspace Google hit[10]. Fram 06:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified original research. WP:AUTO/WP:COI. No assertion or evidence (per nom's ghits) of notability. Best of luck guys, myspace is that way. -- IslaySolomon | talk 07:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 09:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Music Guide also turns up nothing; the supposed albums (if they exist) clearly have no real distributors. Anyone can make an "album" in their basement these days, which is why WP:MUSIC requires a major or notable indie label. Xtifr _tälk 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable garage band. Anybody can have a website and myspace account. Wavy G 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. WillyWonty 23:05, 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. Glen 06:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejects(movie)[edit]

Indie movie whose only relevant GHits are from Wikipedia and mirrors. I deleted the major actors' articles under CSD A7 and bring the film and its 2 sequels (The Rejects II and The Rejects 3, Dead or Alive) here for discussion Samir धर्म 06:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the net and was unable to find any non-Wikipedia hits on any of these movies. I feel all movie references should be removed as well. Based on the description, they were a high school film project. Turlo Lomon 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads as if it had been copied from somwhere else. No sources and non notable. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Supposed claims of notability (made $70k) are less than impressive... Doesn't look sourceable. Wickethewok 19:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 22:34, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callcentric[edit]

Non notable company, fails WP:CORP. The award received (one of the 100 best VoIP providers) is not very discerning, the best 100 is quite a large group. Callcentric Accatel (the mother company) gives only 19 distinct Google hits[11] (without the mother company, you come across other unrelated companies with the same name, like a Swiss one). Fram 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from: Jdobish 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little baffled by the logic of searching for combination of Accatel and Callcentric; what does that prove except that the 2 words may not be used often together. When searching for "callcentric.com" excluding their own domain there are around 1,190 hits.
- Wikipedia's guidline: WP:CORP mentions under "Criteria for companies and corporations":
  - Section 1: "This criterion includes published works in all forms" - an example of this might be (if I am interpreting this correctly) the comments written here: http://www.dslreports.com/nsearch?boardlist=168&cat=remark&advanced=1&168=1&p=10&o=r&q=callcentric
  - Section 2: "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications" - While mentioning specifically Fortune 500, I assume Google Page Rank and Alexa ratings would be a quantifier. Google pagerank for http://www.callcentric.com/ is 5, and current Alexa statistics can be seen here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.callcentric.com of note are the 3 month change and 1 week average.
- Compared to some of the other companies listed here (which is the same category as Callcentric): List of commercial voice over IP network providers it would seem I have written this article in more detail, clarity, and neutrality than the others. Callcentric from what I can tell is more "notable" than some of the other companies/articles listed at that link. No offense taken, but disconcerting that this is my first article and I actually spent time reading the Wikipedia policies, suggestions, etc; and the end result seems to be deletion. Jdobish 07:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: as I noted at the talk page, I appreciate your efforts and hope you don't get discouraged, but: the dslreports link you give is trivial coverage (forum posts, not journalistic articles); an Alexa ranking of more than 100,000 is not very impressive (I don't know what a Google pagerank is); and the fact that there may be other articles worthy of deleteion which are not deleted yet is no indication that this article should be kept either, only that those other articles should be up for deletion as well (and they maywell be, once some editor notices them). I have noticed this article since it was a new one, not because it is somehow worse than all those others. Fram 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the second criterion is not inclusive of Google PageRank and Alexa. Those aren't akin to the Fortune 500 and Forbes 500 in any way. For starters, and in many ways this isn't even the most significant difference, what they rank are not companies. Uncle G 11:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly the links above don't meet WP:CORP. A ranking index referes to stock market indices, e.g. DJIA, not website rankings. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Surrender! It seems like I cannot prove this case. Jdobish 08:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like an advertisement for a small company, not an encyclopedia article on a notable company. The comparison to other VoIP providers made this appear obvious. George J. Bendo 09:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wandy She[edit]

Subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Caffeinepuppy 07:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable beauty pageant winner. Little else in the lines of notability. Wavy G 07:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 11 ghits, no reliable sources. MER-C 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above me. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only notability might be that she is acting in a TV series, but there is only reference for it listed. googling for her name doesn;t turn up much in the way of soruces to provide verifiability. -- Whpq 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn-bio. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:43, 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 keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Tilley[edit]

Delete: The page is a perfect example of unencyclopedic information. The subject is of dubious notability and the article reads like a résumé. Users who are predominantly editing this page seem to be relying on subject's agency and promotional websites as sources. --Mike121212 08:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC) — Mike121212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Jo Stanley gets an entry, all other radio presenters get an entry, why do you want to delete it? Most pages about radio presenters look like resumes, do you know how hard it is to write a bio like this and make it not at all look like a resume? Charlie Somerville 10:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks good to me. The sources could use a bit more variety, but that's fixable - and the biographical notability looks fine to me. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable comedian and radio presenter. --Dan027 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known comedian in Melbourne and around Australia. The article has just had some major upgrades with numerous new sources and enough is known about him to warrant his own article. There are many other biography articles that are in more doubt for deletion than this one thats for sure. --Lakeyboy 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons noted above --Evan C (Talk) 10:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 11:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The cites in the article appear to show that he is a local radio and TV personality in 1 town in Australia who had a record which was a local hit. There is a passing reference in ~~the local paper~~ a national paper. The cites are mostly local fansites. No real evidence of notability in the form of multiple independent national mainstream press coverage. We cannot have an article for everyone who ever had a radio or TV show in the world, (hey I had one) unless they meet WP:N. Edison 17:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "local paper" you speak of is the number one selling newspaper in Australia and the "town" is the second largest city in the country. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Still lacks multiple independent press coverage. Is there the equivalent of Variety (magazine) or Billboard (magazine) in Australia? Why aren't there more press articles in major Australian papers? For an example of a DJ in the U.S. who did humor and got national press, see Howard Stern or Steve Dahl. This article still does not show much to confirm his status and to distinguish him from hundreds of other broadcasting personalities who are non-notable. Edison 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me after a cursory google search, his album appears to be more than just a 'local hit' via Tilley's album "Hot Cereal" hits #4 on the national charts and has gone gold in Australia. Tilley's not a musician, but he is a performer whose work competes with musicians and per WP:MUSIC would pass notability criterion "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country." JGardner 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he did considerable broadcast presentation work, and had a charted song. It;s good enough for me.-- danntm ^T _C 19:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JGardner's comments. Seems to be of interest to a small locale only. -Amatulic 21:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. After thinking about it more, I'm changing my vote, neither for nor against. -Amatulic 21:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the guy has a gold album, which by itself is sufficient for notability. Beyond that, Melbourne has a metro are population of 3.7 million so this isn't a small market radio station he works at. And finally, references are provided. -- Whpq 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly needs cleanup and good sourcing, but theres no reason for deletion. Clamster5 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 176 hits from Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand media database. His album is on the Australian charts at number 13 between Chris Isaak and the Pussycat Dolls. Co-host of a popular radio program in Australia for a number of years. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- and cleanup. - Longhair\^talk 02:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable comedian. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notably unfunny "comedian". Lankiveil 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - can't stand the guy, but plenty notable enough (in the tiny village of Melbourne anyway). --Canley 05:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is difficult to assume good faith when the first thing a new user does is nominate something notable for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 05:45, 9 November 2006
Keep A step in notability above Nokia phone models and 90 year old porn actresses, so until they go, he can stay. --Michael Johnson 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more people are interested than phone models than Matt Tilley. They affect a GREAT deal more people. Also Michael, love the logic you use that wikipedia should be equally weak across the board. Worst.Vote.Comments.Ever. --Mike121212 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, mate! Be civil! --Canley 05:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sounds like he's been on TV enough to be notable at least down under. --nascarfan1 20:50, 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 keep. --Ixfd64 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Items in the Metroid series[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide is my biggest concern here. Initally prodded, the prod tag was replaced with "This article is NOT to be used as a game guide. It is present merely for reference purposes. Any of the following information can be found in various strategy guides, magazines, and online articles published by Nintendo or other reliable third parties". But looking at some choice selections of the text I see things like..."Charge Beam can be combined with the Bomb: by charging up and then changing into the Morphing Ball, a five-drop bomb will immediately be released.", "...multiplayer levels, and is extremely well-hidden... except in the arena Head Shot, where it can be found easily.", and "This is the most effective way to kill many tough enemies in many Metroid games - particularly Metroids themselves..." i.e. things that would only be relevant to players of the game, a game guide. If someone wants to move to gaming wiki that's fine, but I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia. Mitaphane _talk 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ote: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mitaphane _talk 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly only of interest to enthusiastic fans, indiscriminate and instruction manual. Combination 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is not a game guide at all. --- RockMFR 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those passages can be removed, and are a small percentage of the article. I'd do it, but I can't get to it until Friday evening (Eastern Standard time), probably. Be great if someone could do it before then. --Herald Alberich 03:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To me it does not seem like a game guide as there is not description as to how to reach these items but rather what the items do and their significance in the Metroid universe. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. After looking the article over, I admit it needs some cleaning, and perhaps some of the less notable items could be removed. But someone unfamiliar with the Metroid games, reading about, say, Samus Aran, who wants to know about her Power Suit and its abilities, comes to Items in the Metroid series. The article is linked wherever an item is mentioned in any of the other Metroid articles. --Herald Alberich 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic, and gameguidecruft in this case is clearly a cleanup issue. AfD Isn't Cleanup™. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Metroid is an important series of many games, and this article concerns them all. This is an overall look into the suits, weapons and items of the entire Metroid universe. Kill AfD and request cleanup. BKmetic 12:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Not every article about a game is a game guide. If needs cleanup, fix it. — brighterorange (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite There are far, far too many spoilers abound, and most of them aren't even necessary. "Murder Beam" also needs to be removed. The only reason it was referenced is because of the popularity of the glitch. It isn't legitimate either way, and needs to be taken out from an otherwise legitimate list. Also, the article could use some restructuring. 65.6.42.228 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This isn't really the place for specific improvement suggestions - I've copied your post to the talk page, where I'd like you to clarify your statements, if you would. --Herald Alberich 05:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewrite unneeded [strong game-guide-esque] parts, but otherwise topics like Morph Ball is very important to the Metroid series. Am00nz0r5 19:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewrite unneeded [strong game-guide-esque] parts, but otherwise topics like Morph Ball is very important to the Metroid series.

^Exactly what I was going to say. The Copper 17 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Orfen --Pinkkeith 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Orfen -- De Zeurkous ([email protected]), Sunday November 12 14:05 UTC 2006
keep this please deletion is not cleanup so fix it instead Yuckfoo 20:28, 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. --Ixfd64 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LLR Recordings[edit]

Self-described independent record label with only a few artists (who themselves don't seem too famous), I'm of the opinion that notability status is dubious. Any thoughts? Luna Santin 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also the 3 myspace links are sorta suspicious as to the purpose of that page... —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Swpb 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Academy Is... has been on MTV and appeared on Total Request Live. They are now on Fueled By Ramen and has been on Warped Tour. Members of the band have been in a Fall Out Boy music video. I am pretty darn sure that they are notable. I will remove the MySpace links if they bother you that much, but I believe they are relevant. LLR merged into Fueled By Ramen in 2005. They are branching off again as Snakes and Suits this year. --Russ is the sex 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Russ is the sex; LLR is a landmark label for Chicago music and many of those artists have gone on to national success (The Academy Is..., Gatsby's American Dream, and Hidden in Plain view). It seems that because the external links lead to the founders' myspace pages rather than "official" pages that the label must not be important. But, as Russ explained, LLR no longer exists so there is no website. Take the myspace links off you wish. [email protected] 02:04, 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. --Ixfd64 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying is Hot[edit]

This article about a book makes no attempt to assert its notability, but just explains its contents at length, which could be done for any book. Perhaps the page creator (who seems to be a SPA) made no effort to assert notability simply because there isn't any to assert. Google finds only 6 hits for this book [12] under its English title; under the Slovak(?) title of Lobiranje je vroče the book gets 84 hits [13], none in English. (Note that spem-group.com and spem.si are domains belonging to the employer of the author, see [14].) In both cases no links point to independent reliable sources. Therefore I lobby to delete this article. Kavadi carrier 08:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. article about a non-notable book with no reviews. Fails WP:BOOK big-time. — Moondyne 08:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No reviews. WillyWonty 23:06, 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 Speedy delete, spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ComRent International[edit]

Openly admitted (see talk page) advertising for a non-notable company working in an incredibly narrow niche market. -- RHaworth 08:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam, C0MR3nT (talk · contribs) created the article. So tagged. MER-C 09:11, 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 A7 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John and John[edit]

Comic makes no assertion of notability. Searching for "John and John" comic -wikipedia gets about 27k google hits, but the results are obscured by references to unrelated topics. As far as I can tell, this comic isn't published anywhere except its own site. I'll vote to delete unless someone can hunt down supporting information for the article's notability as it currently fails WP:WEB. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 08:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7, subject appears to fail WP:WEB. D!o should probably be grouped in with CSD A7 as well since neither assert notability. A better google search can be found with ""John and John" webcomic d!0 -wikipedia. As you see, it gets 33 unique ghits. —Mitaphane _talk 09:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Both tagged. MER-C 09:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , d!o userfied (valid A7). Guy 12:20, 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 CSD A7. Article's only claim to notability was that subject was "award winning"; yet, such awards were never mentioned -- Samir धर्म 09:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Costanich[edit]

Vanity / advert by user:Bryancostanich. -- RHaworth 09:00, 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. Proto::type 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, King of Time and Space[edit]

The article makes no claims to notability for this comic. Searching for "Arthur, King of Time and Space" -wikipedia results in 591 results further suggesting a lack of notability. Furthermore, it hasn't been published nor has it recieved any awards. Delete as it fails WP:WEB.

Comment "Arthur, King of Time and Space" -site:wikipedia.org -site:answers.com is more useful, as it reduces the number of false negatives from sites that mention wikipedia and the article on the same page. It wouldn't make sense to penalize an entry because people talking about it were citing us, do you think? Performing the search as mentioned does not significantly enhance the evidence for notability. (680 results, though it is the number one result for the title even without quotation marks, and seems to have a google pagrank of 5 of 10, alexa rank of 845,539.) 68.250.175.194 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. yandman 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, this is a long-running web-comic (hence, technically, "published", just not on paper), by one of the respected lights in UK Dr Who fandom, which is widely referenced by other fansites and comic sites. It may not be Doonesbury, but it isn't something invented during the recess, nor is it, as was the Cat License, "written in crayon". After all that, I'd like to register a formal Keep, for substance, not for sentiment. -- Simon Cursitor 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as I can see, this comic is about 2 1/2 years old. So it's age wouldn't really make the comic notable considering some have been around for closer to 10. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 15:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The term long-running in the original poster's comment probably refers to the comic having 903 consecutive daily updates since it's appearance online by it's current name. This would be equivalent to a run of 5 and 3/4ths years for a Monday/Wednesday/Friday comic, a mark few non-notable comics reach. The regularity and reliability of his updates is very unusual amongst webcomics artists; Gadzikowski is a surviving participant in the Daily Grind Iron Man Challenge which has run more than a year and a half at this point. Gadzikowski is likely to continue this run indefinitely - he seems to have been cartooning daily since 1976 (yes, hard to verify) and has stated that: I intend to tell the story of King Arthur in real time in daily panel gags over twenty-five years... In light of his current productivity this seems probable. (Reference: http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/cast.htm, scroll to the bottom.) 68.250.175.194 21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is also referenced in List of webcomics, and Gadzikowski is briefly mentioned as a presenter in Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards.
Weak Delete-Article seems to be informative. But someone should provide references and source to verify the notability. If they can do so I shall change my vote to keep.

Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simon's points lead me to think the author is notable by being cited in the fan community. This means the comic satisfies WP:WEB. Xuanwu 07:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable webcomic. Maybe notable to its fans, definitely not notable in general. WillyWonty 23:09, 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 Speedy delete - No assertion of notability (A7) - Yomangani ^talk 10:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twokinds[edit]

Firstly, the comic makes no assertion of notability. It hasn't been published nor has any article been written on it by a notable source, at least none that I could find in the 800 hits from the google search Twokinds comic -wikipedia. Delete as it seems to fail WP:WEB as far as I can tell. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 09:21, 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 to delete. Redirect to 20th Century Fox will be put in its place. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Fox[edit]

Article asserts no notability for the comic, nor was I able to find any. Google returns roughly 50 results for "21st Century Fox: Romantic Comedy of the Future" -wikipedia, suggesting a lack of notability. The comic's website makes no claims to having won awards or having published any materials. As far as I can see, this comic fails WP:WEB. Delete. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put down per nom. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:V/WP:WEB. Also, chock full of OR and unencyclopedic language... Wickethewok 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Definitely could use some cleanup. It's a relatively long-running regular comic, though (since 1999), and a search without the subtitle turns up better results. Suspect a case can be made for it. Shimeru 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Searching for "21st century fox" comic -wikipedia brought up roughly 700 hits. Still fairly low. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 20th Century Fox. The webcomic is not notable, but this does happen to be an alternative name that 20th Century Fox has used. --- RockMFR 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 20th Century Fox per RockMFR. Andrew Levine 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a lot of reasonably long - running webcomics, with good art, have been up for deletion in recent months. Any idea what the cause of the trend is? Examples: TwoKinds(Averages about 6th on TopWebComics), 21Cf, Alien Dice(Keenspot) Bob and George, Zap!, Catharsis, Better Days... Does something have a grudge or something? And this while comics such as God mode are on the list, despite having no wikipedia page. 86.137.97.67 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Yet another webcomic - fails notability standards. Redirect per RockMFR. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comic mentions cameos of several other notable webcomics. I assume these cameos were made with permission? References from other notable webcomics would make this notable (it's why I try to note other webcomics that have referenced a given comic), the same way an obscure book being referenced by a notable book is made more notable by the reference. Xuanwu 07:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I managed to find at least three references to this comic by others, Freefall and Suburban Jungle being two notable comics. Since this comic is notable enough to be referenced by two other notable comics, that strengthens the argument for keep. Xuanwu 08:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 20th Century Fox per RockMFR. WillyWonty 23:11, 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. Proto::type 11:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Town[edit]

Article doesn't assert comic's notability. Would be subject to CSD:A7 if it weren't for its previous AFD. Brad Beattie ^(talk) 09:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Severe lack of sources, no claims of notability. Apparently, the last AFD took place back before you needed to provide any sort of rational argument for your opinions. Wickethewok 19:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps you mean "the last two AFDs". I abstained the last two times, but I'm really not a fan of repeatedly nominating things until you luck out. --Ian Maxwell 20:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I admit that this nomination is part of a larger effort to clean up the comics that violate WP:WEB as per my user page User:BradBeattie/Pages to clean. However, that should have no specific bearing on the merit of this individual article. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done a google search for notability, but this was making the old internet rounds a couple years ago - my wife was a big fan of the Cat Town website which included "musical performances" (some based on Chicago musical numbers - ah, THE MUSICAL EPISODE, as it's linked). That said, I think there should be more to this than self-reference links - why should this be in the encyclopedia? Robovski 00:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This webcomic does not even have its own domain...sorry, but simply not notable, not important. Google for "Cat Town comic" brings up the wikipedia article first, with the comic not appearing in the next 7 pages (All I could care to look at). The article seems to be more notable than the comic. Gekedo 21:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Maxwell. It's survived two AfD's already. This AfD should not even have occurred. Xuanwu 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WillyWonty 23:12, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 12:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research International[edit]

Non-notable market research company. No references, reads like an advertisement, fails WP:CORP — Moondyne 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have read from real newspapers about researches done by this company, so it's hardly non-notable. The article just needs to be edited to conform the NPOV. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will rewrite though. yandman 09:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is definately non-notable PR. --Mike121212 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have rewritten article to remove the PR tone. This should make things better. yandman 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much better. I also found a reference to a 2006 award which the firm won and which satisfies me that the compnay is notable. I'm happy to delist this AfD. — Moondyne 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rewrite. WillyWonty 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite is good, looks like a large international company so we should have info on it on WP. bbx 05:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Panou[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). No Google hits and even the Greek Wikipedia does not have an article about her. Also, there are no incoming links to the article.--ZeroOne (talk | @) 09:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless "appearances in TV shows" is clarified. yandman 09:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unreferenced, nn bio. --Nehwyn 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, non-notable. WillyWonty 23:14, 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 speedy delete, about some nonsense idea a schoolkid came up with one day. - Bobet 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaavdi Land[edit]

I'll let this speak for itself: "Las Gaavde came up with this idea when he dreamt one night, about running in the forest." Wikpedia is also not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded for speedy delete under db-nonsense. yandman 09:46, 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 delete. --Ixfd64 23:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Love[edit]

Non-notable. There seems to be nothing extraordinary about this soldier, or at least nothing extraordinary enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. yandman 09:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally if there is the slightest bit of encylopedic value, enough where it could possibly be useful for any kind of research, I am all for inclusion, but there just isn't anything here. Ratherhaveaheart 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current contents, but this really needs to be a redirect to Mike Love. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:46, 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 deleted by Youngamerican as a 5-day prod. If you want to contest this deletion take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review where it will be undeleted and this debate will be relisted. --ais523 09:47, 8 November 2006 (U T C)

Dr David J Stone[edit]

Reason Bensonby 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn person

Comment This AfD was not listed in the logs; I'm listing it today. --ais523 09:45, 8 November 2006 (U T C)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (in the sense that 1 pair of eyes is making the decision) close. The nominator has since simply redirected the article. The place to discuss the redirect is Talk:Merchandise to resell, of course. Uncle G 11:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise to resell[edit]

This article is inventory Octopus-Hands 09:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD debate wasn't listed in the logs; I will list it now. --ais523 09:51, 8 November 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gardiner, Geoff Lapaire[edit]

Questionable notability. Appears to be a minor actor with exposure limited to an online "mocumentary." ghits: [15] NMChico24 10:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd like to nominate the similar Geoff Lapaire. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even convinced that the show or its comics or forum are noteworthy (seems popular enough, but all references are to the site itself) -- but Mr. Gardiner doesn't meet WP:BIO. Article says "most famous for," but I'm unable to find any other credits; IMDb, among others, has never heard of him. Shimeru 10:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the original (per Shimeru) and my addendum. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, minor actor. WillyWonty 23:18, 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.--Hús ö nd 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Graphics and Animation (PHICSAMATION)[edit]

This organization probably doesn't deserve its own article unless external sources are cited for it. Maybe a merge into St. Scholastica's College is appropriate. Peter O. (Talk) 05:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. Doubtful that there are any sources or references for this place considering that it's only been around for two years. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD discussion removed from the log by Potrijam - Yomangani ^talk 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization. --- RockMFR 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable organization (unless one is a student of St. Scholastica's College). In addition, it reads like a vanity article. --- Tito Pao 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, Non-notable organization. WillyWonty 23:19, 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. --Ixfd64 23:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars (fan film)[edit]

Non-notable fan-made remake of Star Wars IV. --Nehwyn 11:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear conflict of interest as per the "proof" link on the article. Even crosses the line close to spam. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. If this is internet content, please tag with {{db-web}}. Thanks. MER-C 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spammy and no assertion of notability. Prolog 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film, fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan-made film, no verification from external reliable sources to establish notability, Wikipedia is not a crystal-ball (as this has not even been filmed yet), Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, Doesn't come close to WP:WEB guidelines for web content, it essentially violates WP:SPAM, need I go on? The video plea to save the article does win "most desperate thing I've ever seen anyone do to save an article" though; even if it does violate WP:EL.--Isotope23 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the film is not notable and still has not been released I have to say delete. Almost seems like spam to me. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current content and redirect to Star Wars fan films. Wavy G 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Yamaguchi先生 05:45, 9 November 2006

I don't think is article needs to be deleted just yet, but it does need a lot more information. What film organization is producing this movie? Where is its official website? Is it even listed on fanfilms.net? If these can be answered, then it could remain, otherwise, it should be deletedMaraJade85 04:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, none of those matter one bit. It still fails WP:WEB. Obvious Delete. IrishGuy ^talk 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely non-notable. TheRealFennShysa 01:49, 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 Spam Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View From Heaven[edit]

Non-notable website. Nine registered users. Not many reviews. By author's own admittance, a "small" following - and also website not functioning. Was a contested speedy, so it finds itself here. Got to feel for the guys, however... Delete Bubba hot ep 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, a small group of people made website, fair enough, but with 9 users it doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. Someone clearly put effort into this article but it's not what wikipedia is about. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:30, 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.--Hús ö nd 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven mark benbow[edit]

Unreferenced, likely a hoax, and user removed prod without reason. Ansell 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete implausible claims, no references, fails Geogre's First Law. Guy 12:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero ghits. Unverifiable. MER-C 12:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I must admit curiosity as to the details of this accident that involved a cannonball, a goat, and a tin of margerine [sic]. (Especially considering it took place 61 years before margarine was developed.) —Cryptic 16:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shimeru 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete obvious (albeit hilarious) hoax. Was a cabin boy on the S.S. Manlove? And became captain after an incident involving a cannonball, a goat, and a tin of margerine?
Delete per the nomination. Yamaguchi先生 05:48, 9 November 2006
Delete, although I'd also like to see the author provide some details on the "incident" (which now involves a crate of lemons rather than margarine) before it gets zapped. Perhaps this and Stephanie-Perrin-Du-Tout (who has "been around the block more than the neigbours (sic) motor scooter") ought to go into the bad jokes list? Probably not a good idea, we'd just be encouraging more bad jokes... Tubezone 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be an exceptionally good example. Wavy G 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, with no sources to back it up! --SunStar Net 23:01, 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 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit 802.11[edit]

Contested A7 speedy, but this is still in development so there are verifiability issues. Not straightforward. Guy 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable technology that has only just been developed. This article serves only as an advert for the company concerned, Raminovatech, who created the article themselves. Suggest at best a move to academia.wikia. yandman 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable being used in only one place, also has been put up by a user with the same name as the company that is producing it. Ben W Bell talk 14:42, 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 Delete - Yomangani ^talk 12:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takota[edit]

Tagged speedy A7 but makes a claim of notability. Seems a bit implausible, I can't find much evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Guy 12:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the assertions can be backed up with references. Vegaswikian 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references. WillyWonty 23:24, 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 12:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Games Guide[edit]

Looks like an attempt to promote a newly published book by creating an article about it on Wikipedia. Alf Boggis 12:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete, non-notable. yandman 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was incomplete. I have now completed it. --Pak21 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,I posted original entry, see talk for reasonsThe Glory Boy 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this user's only contributions to Wikipedia have been to create this article and links to it. --Pak21 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently stands, although prepared to change my view if some evidence of notability can be shown --Pak21 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable book, published by a major publisher. Respectable Amazon (UK) rank of 9,125. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedically notable book. Wikipedia is not a library directory or Amazon.com. Possible promotional abuse of wikipedia. Current Amazon UK rank is not high enough to comfortably and convincingly show encyclopedic notability.. Bwithh 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? (on probation?) Apart from that the intro has a sticky salesman feel to it, (and this is copy/pasted into the corresponding linklist), the 5star parade section could have some value, and it doesn't seem more suspect than many other books in the same category.. If kept though, maybe ought to change its name to The Video Games Guide (book)..? Murgh 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedically notable.--Stone 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Can't see having a page for every book of this notability here. Might be a case for this book here in the future after it becomes a commonly cited resource outside of Wikipedia. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just an advert for an as yet non-notable book. With any luck deletion will also put a stop to page's author spamming up the rest of wikipedia with links to it. CiaranG 18:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw the book in a store at the weekend and while it looks pretty, it has non-notable written all over it. I can't believe that it will ever be notable, and the original article's creator will not make any friends by creating links throughout WP. I'd almost suggest preventing re-creation, but I suppose it's theoretically possible that this book might become notable, in the same way as English As She Is Spoke became notable. Ringbark 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without actually having read the book (has anyone else here?) I don't see the need to delete this article at this point. The book has rissen to rank of 4,069 at Amazon UK. --Frodet 20:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book is too new to have garnered notability. Try back in a year. —Psychonaut 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: which above? The arguments made by The Glory Boy/Murgh, and Andrew Lenahan/Frodet differ significantly. Cheers --Pak21 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of them, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: not (yet) notable enough to merit an entry. It has shot up the Amazon sales list since yesterday (when I clocked it at 25,000), but that's hardly significant. I very much agree with Ringbark about The Glory Boy's efforts to promote it in other articles - that's not helping. However, as it's this user's first effort at creating content, I'd like to say "well done, please keep editing, but please also be aware of issues of notability in the future"; and don't get too attached to a particular page you've created. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with pak21 et al. Self-promo. --BACbKA 17:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think that it's self promotional (Pak21 doesn't say this above). From comments The Glory Boy has made elsewhere, it does not appear that he/she is the book's author. I think this article can be deleted on other grounds. --Plumbago 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no grounds to delete this article because it is an advertisement for the book. Just because it is the person's first entry is not proof that it was done so. --Pinkkeith 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOT#SOAP On the contrary: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Ringbark 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Commment I do agree that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. I was just stating that I don't see any reason to suggest that this article is advertising. If just talking about any subject is considered to be advertising then every single article in Wikipedia is advertising. --Pinkkeith 13:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Detete: Definitely feel that this should be removed, and I agree with the prior comment.~Cnota 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I agree with the objections of WP:NOT a soapbox, but the article is not neccessarily pure advert. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no indication that this book is significant, regardless of possibility of it bein an advert. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackingsource.net[edit]

Contesed A7 speedy, looks a lot like generic forum vanispamcruftisement but that might just be because the article is crap rather than because the subject fails guidelines. Guy 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline speedy. Alexa rank of 125,698. MER-C 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, CSD G11 could also apply. --tgheretford (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Shimeru 22:29, 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Tyrell, Niko (The Mask)[edit]

Not notable characters that only appeared in one film. WP:FICT and WP:NOT a plot summary applies here. Interrobamf 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These two articles were in rather poor condition when I first came across them, and I have attempted to make significant improvements in order to bring them up to encylopedic quality. I feel that these two characters of the film are notable enough to have their articles as they are the prominent villains within the film. That said, I realize that the plot summary is rather excessive (especially for Tyrell) and not in line with WP:NOT. I will attempt to add further content and reduce the summary if the article is kept, as I cannot do immediately as I am extremely busy over the next week or so. If the article cannot be kept, perhaps it can be merged or redirected into The Mask (film) article or maybe a seperate article featuring the characters in The Mask universe? At this point though, I believe the article should be kept.--Auger Martel 16:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why these pages should be deleted just because Tyrell and Niko only appeared in one film, because it's not a valid reason. Jienum 19:41, 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 to Simon Garner. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Garner[edit]

Youth footballer who have never played a professional game. He is not even in the Blackburn squad. Punkmorten 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HornetMike 13:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possibly worth merging the content into Simon Garner - the article on his father. --Cherry blossom tree 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It worth merging with Simon Garner because he has a son and that is Joe. So why not merge it with Simon and leave it there until Joe became a professional player then divide from Simon and create a new article of its own, that is my compromise. Rakuten06 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Simon Garner until he makes his first-team début Kingjamie 20:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per everyone above ChrisTheDude 22:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if (but only if) someone performs the merge right away, please go ahead. Punkmorten 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already put the pertinent information (such as it is!) into Simon's article, so all that would need to be done is for the admin who closes this debate to turn Joe's article into a redirect.... ChrisTheDude 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Merge per above. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:58, 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) 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ritter[edit]

no assertion of notability, prod and speedy removed already JBKramer 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. yandman 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be rather more notable than an average professor, at least according to here [16] (under Eminent Scholars/Finance) and also according to his biography [17]. Optimale ^Gu 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basically, those links say that: (a) his school says he's notable, and (b) he says he's notable. Not quite the same thing as independent reliable sources. -- Fan-1967 16:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think either of these sites say Jay Ritter is notable, they just list stages of his academic life in a very ordinary (and reliable) way. It's up to the editors here to say for themselves if that information makes him notable (enough) for Wikipedia or not in their eyes.

Delete The publications and presentations seem appropriate, but not exceptional, for an academic of his level of seniority. The main other thing I notice from the CV is that he took longer than most to end up in a job that led to tenure. Fan-1967 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more notable than the average professor (or professional athlete) so passes the professor test. Also Google likes him: [18]. Kappa 05:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this is your idea of notability, then hell, I should start an article on myself. WP:BIO surrenders. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No assertion of notability - doesn't cite anything which proves that he is indeed "known" for his work on IPOs. Fails WP:BIO so far. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:57, 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. --Ixfd64 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradwood Scale[edit]

The Bradwood Scale was devised by Eleanor BRADshaw and Callum WOOD, maths students at St John Fisher Catholic High School, Dewsury. Isn't easy when they say "delete me because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" in the first sentence? -- RHaworth 12:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impressive, but unfortunately not notable enough (yet...). yandman 13:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOR Optimale ^Gu 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! i find this enlightening i heard that UCAS are considering using it as part of their point system

62.252.96.16 10:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This definetly needs to be kept, how can people wish to delete it? It is very impressive and, as a teacher, I think it is invaluable to our Educational System.62.252.96.16 10:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this isn't a vote, so there's little point in spamming. yandman 10:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's original research, and there's little evidence of it elsewhere on the web. If this was really a notable scale, wouldn't there be a lot of press coverage and books about it?? --SunStar Net 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definietly original research. --Nehwyn 09:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was clearly made up in school one day.AlmostReadytoFly 00:29, 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 keep and move to Frank Lampl per MOS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Frank Lampl[edit]

Non-notable yandman 13:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Frank Lampl. Verifiable businessman, see sources - [19], [20]. Catchpole 14:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable businessman, there are even reliable sources i.e. Forbes to cite. All business men from Forbes are notable, he has also a peerage. Isn't that notable enough? --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly notable from his biography Optimale ^Gu 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be helpful if the nomination contained more than two words to explain why he or she finds the subject to be non-notable. Yamaguchi先生 05:50, 9 November 2006
Move to remove the Sir. -- lucasbfr ^talk 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowieners[edit]

Verifiability concerns, see 1070 ghits. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a strange and interesting case. A comic published by Mirage in 1989 (when TMNT was a breakout hit) would have been pretty notable. However, I can't find any evidence the thing was even ever actually published. Hallowieners +Mirage brings just a couple of WP articles and some unrelated stuff. "Ryan Brown" +Hallowieners brings just 3 results, 2 from Wikipedia and a 3rd from a forum post where the poster says they haven't been able to find the book but has seen art from it. Not necessarily a hoax, but maybe this got announced and even advertised and never released? Delete as unverifiable unless new info arises. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds familiar. I'm doing some looking - first thought is that it was 1990 instead of 1989 though. Robovski 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad deleteWell, the internet isn't probably going to solve this one. For something minor from before the internet, this isn't an unusual state of affairs. I suspect that the subject material is real, but either didn't get to production or only ran to at most a few issues (probably was just a one-off). The term "hallowieners" seems to be generally used as a term for kids trick-or-treating at Halloween, hence the other 1000+ ghits. So, this just doesn't seem notable, and hence should either be deleted or perhaps merged into the Mirage and/or the articles for the authors. Robovski 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those doing verification searches, might take notice that the article title is more-than-likely misspelled. If this article was indeed written in good faith, the subject was more than likely spelled "Halloweiners." Now that I've pointed this out...I feel...rather ridiculous right now. Wavy G 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had considered that. You get more relevant info with the spelling as it is in the article. Robovski 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. The tiny shreds of evidence that do exist seem to support the Hallowieners spelling. Halloweiners +Mirage gets zero hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. BTW, this sounds like the sort of thing that would be covered on X-Entertainment.com. (Not that that would that be a reliable source, but it might be a good starting point.) Wavy G 13:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching Google Groups for the use of "Hallowieners" in Usenet newsgroups. The only occurrances that came up were in comic trade groups where someone had 1 issue for sale (most other comics listed had multiple issues). Perhaps, it can be concluded by this that it was only a one-issue comic, and as such, is probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia article (???). Wavy G

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between merging or deletion, those who supported keeping in order to merge are free to pursue that as normal. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrens Nest Estate[edit]

Non notable housing estate Quentin X 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dudley#Neighbourhoods per WP:LOCAL. This merits coverage in Wikipedia, but in the town article instead of its own. JYolkowski // talk 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Nehwyn 09:44, 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 and move to -eaux. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaux[edit]

Wikipedia is not a reference of name origins, let alone a reference for a part of a name. Nuttah68 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Actually Wikipedia is an excellent reference of names, orgins and uses. Just type in any name (your name, perhaps) and you'll likely find an article about it. This particular name is of linguistic notoriety. --Oakshade 02:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to Move to -eaux per Caknuck --Oakshade 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- "This particular name"? This article isn't about a name. Its about 4 letters that occur at the ends of various names. And you'll find that Wiktionary is the place where name etymologies can be found. Compare wikt:Hastings, a dictionary article about a proper noun, and Hastings, an encyclopaedia article about a place denoted by that proper noun. Uncle G 15:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you stalking me, Uncle G? Any way, 4 very important linguistic letters. Of encylopedic interest. --Oakshade 15:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do we know that they are important linguistically? Have you found any linguists writing about them? Uncle G 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I haven't nor have I looked. --Oakshade 21:45, 8 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, KrakatoaKatie 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to -eaux. I'd suggest finding at least one more reference, but I'm in favor of keeping it, as it's an interesting phonological and morphological regional phenomenon. Moving it to -eaux would be more representative of the subject being a suffix, as opposed to a standalone word. Caknuck 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move, Keep per Caknuck The subject is easily a topic useful for researching a particular subject and therefore encyclopedic.Ratherhaveaheart 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update Per Caknuck's suggestion, I added a few references to the article. I'm still in favor of "moving" to -eaux. --Oakshade 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move — Move per above. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:07, 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) 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podiobook[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary or directory; article was recreated after previous deletion via prod on 20 Sept. 2006. --Alan Au 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT AfD - I performed the first edit on this podiobook article after it was created, correcting a misspelled word. But after rereading Wikipedia's policy, I agree with the AfD request, because there is nothing of substance to be said about podiobooks other than a basic description (dictionary) and a few examples (potential link spam). I think the concept of a "podiobook" is important enough to be mentioned in the podcast article, but nothing more than that. BJ Nemeth 22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another minor variation on "podcast," with no evidence that it isn't a protologism and no info beyond a dictdef. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to podcast for the time being. I suspect there's enough sources to write an article on the website, but this is hardly more than a dicdef. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 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, KrakatoaKatie 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --humblefool ® 22:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, redirect, transwiki to Wikitionary, etc. per nom, WP:V, dicdef, and simply not a well-known neologism yet.--WaltCip 02:00, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 12:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaksa Cvitanic[edit]

I originally thought userfying this was probably the right thing to do, but the author - likely the subject - has made no other edits other than to create and fiddle with the formatting on this page. WP:AUTO violation by a a professor who doesn't meet WP:PROF; reads like the sort of bio blurb you find on college websites. Opabinia regalis 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and clean up. Albeit vanity, Cvitanic has co-written a couple of books [21], all of which have been published by notable publishers, including Springer Science+Business Media and MIT Press. Possibly also redirect.--TBCΦtalk? 05:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was asked to comment by TruthbringerToronto on the notability but this is really not the kind of mathematics I would know much about. Looking at WP:PROF, I do believe he falls a bit short despite a very nice career. My main concern is with the apparent lack of reliable third-party sources on the importance of his work. Probably an iffy case. Pascal.Tesson 06:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As a quick note, I should mention that I used Cvitanic's book in an undergraduate Economic Statistics course I took (and received an A in) so I might be a little bit biased. However, I believe Cvitanic meets notability criteria based on the following chain:

3. The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. To be significant or well-known, the work must meet one of the following criteria:

2. The work must be prescribed as a textbook, a reference work, or required reading in an undergraduate- or graduate- level course; which is not taught, designed, or otherwise overseen by the author; at several independent accredited universities.

I only know that the textbook was taught at my school, but I am pretty sure that other schools use it because the professor I took the course with participated in an experimental shared teaching program across several liberal arts colleges where each professor at each school taught an identical course (which would seemingly require the same textbook). I am sure (based on the academic accolades) that Cvitanic may pass another criterion which would be easier to show, but for now one should suffice. -bobby 15:39, 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, KrakatoaKatie 14:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cvitanic has published two books with real academic publishers (MIT Press and Cambridge University Press), which is notable. This is not the case of someone promoting a self-published author. George J. Bendo 10:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Catholic Middle School[edit]

This article deals with a private American middle school that makes no real claim of notabilty. I know that there are those out there that feel that high schools are by default worthy of inclusion, but I have never seen it succesfully expanded to lower-level schools. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe all schools are notable, from middle school standard onwards. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And do you have any reason to back this belief up? I could believe that all bands are notable, it wouldn't stop them from being deleted. Furthermore, note that (as discussed so nicely on recent school AfDs) not even countries are inherently notable under Wikipedia policy. So why should schools be? JoshuaZ 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Google results [22] point to passing mentions of the school as someone's workplace or place of study, or simple school directories. Little chance this is going to be anything more than a mirror of their website. Kavadi carrier 15:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable schools, as they mostly serve as underwatched targets for vandalism. This one has no independent sources so WP:SCHOOL says we don't have to keep it. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no assertion of notability. And for you WP:SCHOOLers out there... well, it's incredibly tough to fail that proposal, but this school still manages to do so. -- Kicking222 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools in Wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not an argument. I'm not even sure if it is a coherent sentence. Is "keep" meant as the verb making it an imperative command or is that just saying "keep" followed by the sentence fragment "schools in Wikipedia" like it is some sort of mantra? JoshuaZ 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment How about this: Keep it civil JoshuaZ. Who are you the grammatically correct voting police? Relax buddy. --Howrealisreal 15:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't an issue of grammar, this is an issue of the above not forming a coherent sentence. Minor grammatical problems are fine when they don't interfere with communication. However, in this case, it isn't clear to me that any argument has actually been made and if so what the argument is. If you can explain your above sentence fragment in more detail I'd appreciate it. JoshuaZ 16:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - (dumbfounded look) Think about it: "Keep schools in Wikipedia" means I believe schools should be kept in Wikipedia. In all seriousness, this is really about the way I voted, which you obviously don't approve of, and now you have to bust my chops for whatever reason. Remember, this is "the free encylopedia", meaning I can vote whatever way I want, for whatever reason, and am entitled to be treated civil. I think that settles it. --Howrealisreal 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is NOT what the free in Wikipedia means. You are supposed to base your keep or delete on the policies, not your personal opinons, otherwise you could throw out notability, reliable sources, and everything else. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schools are NOT inherently notable (and votes that only say that should not be counted). No assertions of notability and no reliable sources. TJ Spyke 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable or even arguably notable about this school. It is not particularly large, it does not have notable alumni or notable staff, it doesn't have athletic teams or other clubs that have performed at a notable level. It does not even have minimal independent coverage so it fails the generous WP:SCHOOLS even if that had consensus behind it. The lack of independent coverage also brings up WP:V which is in Jimbo's word's "non-negotiable". JoshuaZ 20:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable. I believe all schools are noteworthy, as they provide a legally required service to the local in which they are placed. Jcuk 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually many countries don't have any mandatory schooling (not to mention the fact that this is a private school). Also, police stations and fire departments and DMVs all provide legally required services. Are you in favor of keeping every DMV if we can verify its existence? JoshuaZ 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable. Alternately, trim some of the fat and merge with Charlotte, North Carolina per WP:LOCAL. JYolkowski // talk 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMost DMVs are verifiable. Do you want them mentioned? JoshuaZ 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Not in their own articles, but a mention in the city/etc. article or on the appropriate ministry page is okay. If someone creates an article about a DMV, merge it. JYolkowski // talk 22:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So no concern about oh, say Wikipedia not being a directory or similar issues? JoshuaZ 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Theres concern and then theirs outright opposing zealotry... Joshua your walking towards the latter, so please be careful. Oh this is also a Keep vote. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm walking towards zealously by what? Asking questions? Arguing with people and attempting to discuss their logic hardly qualifies as "zealotry" And while I'm at, AfD is not vote etc. etc. and so what is your logic for keeping? JoshuaZ 06:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure it's quite possible to write things about a DMV that aren't directory-type information. Having said that, this discussion is entirely academic because no-one really writes about DMVs. If they ever do, we can worry about it then. In the meantime, the article under discussion isn't a directory so it's fine. JYolkowski // talk 23:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Failure to examine hypotheticals is often an indication of not having a coherent explanation. I have a DMV in mind and have some sources for it, I'm not going to create an article to make a point but given that I could, a straight answer on whether or not such an article would be kept would be helpful. (And incidentally, this certainly reads like a directory entry to me. It has almost no info other than address. That's basically the defintion of a directory). JoshuaZ 00:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you can write a sufficiently long and verifiable article, I would have it kept as-is. Otherwise, a merge to someplace (e.g. its locality) is likely the best solution. JYolkowski // talk 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge to appropriate locality per WP:LOCAL as a secondary option. Yamaguchi先生 05:51, 9 November 2006
- Comment Any reason for keeping? JoshuaZ 06:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reasons are cited within the guidelines that I specified JoshuaZ. Yamaguchi先生 06:14, 9 November 2006
    - Where does WP:LOCAL say anything about keeping schools? JoshuaZ 06:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Schools are mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph. My higher preference is to keep as middle schools are something which our readers are likely to turn to Wikipedia for neutral encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 06:25, 9 November 2006
        Yes, they are part of a list. Congratulations. Now, where does WP:LOCAL say anything about keeping schools? JoshuaZ 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Kla'quot 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also per nom. No assertion of notability, no verifiable sources beyond the trivial listings and passing mentions. No good arguments presented for keeping the school yet. Fram 14:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn school. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There is nothing unique about this school that makes it standout agaisnt really any other institution. Also, this middle school IS NOT important enough to go into this article about the local community, all it deserves at best is a mention among schools, mention meaning the name. It's absurd for everything to be listed, but this is a middle school that nothing exceptional has been noted about it. Yanksox 00:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REPENT YE MIDDLE SCHOOL INCLUSIONISTS! I mean, Strong Delete - crz crztalk 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no "arguments" to keep other than "all schools are noteworthy". Except nothing noteworthy can apparently be said about this school... so it's basically just a directory entry. Which WP is NOT. --W.marsh 06:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All schools are not inheriently notable. Fails WP:SCHOOL, and for that matter, with all the vandalism of the AFD Notice going on, perhaps the article needs to be salted as well. As for all the keep votes, you do understand that AfD is not a voting process, and the closing admin who decides the issue will most likely disregard keep votes that aren't based on policy. WP:LOCAL doesn't apply. --Shrieking Harpy......^Talk^|^Count 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any independent coverage by reliable sources and no claim to notability in the article. GRBerry 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please directory argument is false there is much verifiable information here Yuckfoo 20:21, 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 close, move has been done, I'll kill the redirect (which is now irrelevant). Proto::type 11:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism and Hinduism[edit]

An editor cleaned up all the original research here a few days ago and what was left doesn't really constitute an article on Jainism and Hinduism, but instead is a fairly decent start on an article about the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of 2006. My opinion is that there should be a Move to Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill of the content that currently exists at this namespace (with expansion warrented at the new namespace) and then Delete (which is why I'm bringing this here) the redirect as "Jainism and Hinduism" != Gujarat Freedom of Religion Bill. I also want to state I have no predjudice against a new article being created at Jainism and Hinduism provided someone wants to created a neutral, sourced discussion of the religions and their history together.--Isotope23 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with nominator. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 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, Yomangani ^talk 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change name I found the article interesting and informative and fairly well scoped but not at all what I was expecting from the current name. My big question is whether this is related to christian conversions of other faiths in India. --Mike 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't need to be brought here; move it on your own, and send the redirect to WP:RfD. Be Bold! --humblefool ® 22:11, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YFG Letterkenny[edit]

Contested speedy. A student/youth, local branch of a political party of no notability Nuttah68 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Young Fine Gael itself is notable, this particular branch has no evidence of sufficient independent notability. Dryman 23:57, 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, Yomangani ^talk 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two-year old political interest student organizations are not inherently notable. Article asserts nothing else that would be notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't find anything in the article which would want anyone from outside the organisation need to read it, someone looking for this information would look on their own web site not in Wikipedia. --19:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Complete absence of WP:RS. --Nehwyn 09:43, 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 Speedied as a personal attack --humblefool ® 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMSIN[edit]

No ghits for IMSIN in that context. Maybe even a speedy nonsense candidate. Optimale ^Gu 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if it were verifiable, the article is still nothing more than a neoligism. →Bobby← 16:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer has created a Wikipedia article criticising the writing style of xyr colleague. This is a hairsbreadth away from being an attack article. It's certainly not an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP This is such a thinly veiled attack upon another lawyer that I would say it's not disguised at all. The article is an embarassment to the legal community, and not in a good way, either. According to the text of the article it would seem that the target of the article has sent out a mass e-mail message to a list of attorneys, and those people who received it will easily be able to identify the target of the demeaning remarks. The creator of the article in the edit history for his contribution to another article says he is the director of Virgin Islands Search & Rescue. I don't know if that means he is a lawyer, but where I come from making an article like this would be a very, very bad thing for a lawyer to do. OfficeGirl 20:31, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cummings[edit]

A stripper in Iowa. Completely non-notable. No entry in IMDB or rame.net, only Google hits are for Wikipedia & mirrors, and her home page. The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry. Chowbok ☠ 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly does not meet WP:Bio. →Bobby← 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely self-promotion abuse of wikipedia. Already given wikipedia some bad press Bwithh 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also suggest a cleanup of the personalities listed in List of big-bust models and performers. I like naked girls, but I doubt they should feature in Wikipedia. Stammer 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite having won such wonderous accolades as "Miss Nude Iowa Duo Team of the Year". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if anyone has a MediaWiki installation about X-rated stuff, then it can be transwiki'd across there. I think she's probably non-notable enough to not be in here. --SunStar Net 19:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Hello32020 20:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the major editor of the article so I don't know if I can vote but I do want to make a few points.
- Rebecca meets the Notability (pornographic actors). Criteria point # 3 her unique contribution is written in the final paragraph of her article. First bisexual president and her most notable is her speaking at colleges and universities Criteria point # 4 by being the subject of an article in a major midwestern newspaper. (circulation 240,912) She was also interviewed by PervertRadio.com. Most notable of all of her awards is the one from the Miss Nude Galaxay national dance competition at Nudes-Poppin'. (also mentioned in John Stagliano
- I was helped (corrected) by an Administrator user:Alkivar to make sure the uploaded image met all Wikipedia requirements. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings I was also helped (corrected) by Administrator Joe Beaudoin Jr. on the proper MoS standards for the article. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings The image has not been changed and the article has had very little content editing since they helped me and at no time did they suggest that the image or article should be deleted. They helped get it up to MoS standards.
- The self promotion issue has also been dealt with by Administrator user:Alkivar. see Talk:Rebecca Cummings
- On November 4, Chowbak tagged image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg for deletion and now 4 days later after personally attacking mine and Rebecca's integrity he lists the article for deletion. You've got to question why the article wasn't listed for deletion from the beginning?
  - FWIW, I wasn't trying to personally attack anyone's integrity; I just felt you had a different attitude about information distribution. That's perfectly honorable, but it does put you in conflict IMO with Wikipedia's founding principles. That's all I was trying to say. I hadn't looked closely at the article before you wrote that; upon closer examination I realized I had no idea why there was an article about her in the first place. Please assume good faith, and don't take any of this personally. I always may be wrong, but I do act for what I honestly believe is best for Wikipedia. —Chowbok ☠ 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - CommentI accept your explanation and will assume good faith.--HeartThrobs 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On here he falsely states "The newspaper story about her linked in the article is about how nobody has heard of her but she has a Wikipedia entry." The newspaper article says, "People didn't want to claim they knew her." Nowhere in the article does it say that nobody has heard of her.--HeartThrobs 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Neither media coverage nor obscure awards nor local small-town organization leadership positions nor random speaking gigs automatically translate to encyclopedic notability Bwithh 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the original admin consulted on the image pertaining to this article, I think we need to exclude any debate on the image here... that debate belongs on IFD not AFD. As for the self promotion angle, I feel this article has a very good balance between fact and promotional content. The article as written initially I feel proved that she passes the WP:PORNBIO guidelines. My initial thought was that this was self promotion, having later found out that HeartThrobs was a friend creating the bio and that it did not violated WP:AUTO changed my initial deletion decision. Having seen the article as it stands now, and after review again of the content and the references, I still feel that a strong case regarding her WP:PORNBIO "notability" is put forward. I think this belongs to stay on wikipedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do not bite the newcomers, there is borderline notability here, sufficient enough to meet WP:BIO and our verifiability policies. Yamaguchi先生 05:41, 9 November 2006
Comment Indeed Cummings has a case under the IMO incredibly lax Notability (pornographic actors). Unless those guidelines are revised, as I think they should, it's hard to motivate a rejection. Stammer 07:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Alkivar's reasoning above on notability. I have struck out my earlier vote as such having seen this new evidence. --SunStar Net 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) she doesn't meet it. It's not any laxer than WP:BIO, it's just more specific. Point 3 is "unique, noteworthy contributions", and gives examples of beginning a trend or starring in an iconic or blockbuster feature. She has done neither. (Ron Jeremy is iconic. Co-starring with him isn't, thousands have.) Being the first bisexual president of a nameless gay/lesbian/bisexual organization isn't unique unless the organization is notable itself - after all, there seem to only be three orientation possibilities, and somebody has to be first for each. Point 4 is "subject of a noteworthy news piece or controversy" and while the Des Moines Register is a fine newspaper, the article isn't about her, it's about the fact she, among other relative unknowns, has a Wikipedia article, how surprising. We try hard to avoid creating news like that. Also note that the article is humorous, even satirical, pointing out such facts that her name - allegedly real - is "Cummings", while her promotion agent's name writing her Wikipedia article -- I assume that's User:HeartThrobs? -- is "Goings". I chuckled out loud reading this line: "It's been said she is the most famous porn star in Iowa but she really is the only porn star in Iowa. The other one died this spring in a car accident in Vegas." Sorry. Having an article about an apparent error in Wikipedia shouldn't stop us from correcting the error. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've commented on the image separately, at Image_talk:Rebecca_Cummings.jpg#AnonEMouse's statement, per request. The issues are indeed separate, but the image owner's point of view... well, you can read it there. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LBGT organizations can have one leader representative, but in this case, the nameless organization appears to be a small local organization or organization chapter.Bwithh 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-balanced article about a notable individual. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes her notable? The news story about three Wikipedia articles including hers, or the past presidency of an organization the size or even name of which is not given? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that the positions she held (as opposed to the ones she worked in) were notable in and of themselves. Is there a specific "threshhold" for notability of organizations? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found a number of ghits about her, but nothing to verify her history or the info about her "presidency". This definitely needs to be cited properly. I'm keeping an eye on this and will change to "Delete" if a valid cite isn't provided. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Along with not being notable enough for IMDB, as a porn actress she isn't even notable enough to have an IAFD page. Olessi 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her article has been updated to indicate the name of the organization, ACCESS in Northeast Iowa. The person I talked to at ACCESS was not able to confirm the exact years she was president other then mid 1990's. The original wording about her being president came from her interview on PervertRadio. Her PervertRadio interview is cited in the article.--HeartThrobs 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alkivar. Dismas|^(talk) 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough - Canderous Ordo 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please do save.
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queston Her last name Cummings sounds fictional. She's a porn star and so she has this stage last name related to orgasm and semen. I think if that is not her real name then it detracts from the article's notability. Anomo 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding!? I'd be willing to bet that not even 1% of American porn stars or even strippers go by their real names. Go through the porn star categories and you'll find many that live up to the notability requirements of WP:PORNBIO that don't have their birth names listed. It doesn't make them any less notable. The article for Jenna Jameson is well on its way to becoming a featured article yet that is not her birth name. And let's not even get started on mainstream actors that have had false names such as Alan Alda, Cary Grant, and John Wayne. Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Obviously I think this should be deleted, but the fact that she has an assumed name shouldn't be a factor in consideration. Especially for somebody in porn. —Chowbok ☠ 23:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She fits the notability criteria from the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors). -- TrojanMan 15:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with all other points made for keeping the article. -- HowardDean 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Obviously I'm biased since I nominated it, but I have to say I'm struck that people are voting "Keep" without even addressing AnonEMouse's points. Since this isn't a vote but rather a discussion, I hope that the admin recognizes that and deletes regardless of the actual headcount (unless, of course, a really killer argument has been made on the "Keep" side. But I haven't seen that yet). —Chowbok ☠ 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, AnonEMouse is certainly our resident expert, and his points were well made. For many of us though, Cummings seems to be in a "grey area", notability wise. While she's certainly hasn't achieved the notoriety of Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameson (sp?), neither is she an anonymous model with a personal ad in the back of a men's magazine. I know that my next comment isn't really considered a valid argument, but if we can have articles about Pokemon characters or cartoon strips that only appear on Blogs, then a semi-notable porn star doesn't seem like such a big stretch. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "an anonymous model with a personal ad in the back of a men's magazine" basically sums it up. She's a stripper from some Iowa town selling videos of herself on her web page. You'll get no argument from me that there are lots of superfluous articles on Wikipedia, but really, that way lies madness. We could never delete anything if "look at all these other articles that need to be deleted" was an acceptable argument... unless every single non-notable article was put up on AFD at the same time. —Chowbok ☠ 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now there's an amusing idea; nom it all at once, then sit back and watch the fireworks. Like I said, not an acceptable argument in itself, it just seems that in borderline cases it's better to err on the side of Inclusion. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I was not sure what to do with this one. I did not like the suggestion to basically ignore the keep votes. But your comment may sum it up. This is a borderline call so no consensus or keep is probably they right outcome. So I'll say Keep. Vegaswikian 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please she meets the notability criteria for pornographers Yuckfoo 20:25, 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 speedy keep. This is not an article, but a redirect whose deletion should be debated on WP:RFD if necessary. Kusma (討論) 16:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not want[edit]

I revert vandalism on this page and discovered it to be nothing more that a link. The phrase "Do Not Want" is not worthy of its own article. Not to mention the beside the vandalism and revert this page has not been edited since its creation on Auguest 11, 2006 (Steve 16:36, 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 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Everybodyfields[edit]

Non-notable, advertising AW 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a far better nomination than that. The article states that the band has released two albums. The WP:MUSIC criteria include that. Please explain exactly why, given that, you think that this band does not satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria, explaining the research that you did. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD for how to give good rationales. Uncle G 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The records appear to be self-released [23] - the WP:MUSIC says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", which is not the case. They don't seem to fulfill any other of the WP:MUSIC criteria --AW 17:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's much better than "non-notable, advertising". Thank you. Uncle G 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass notability for me based on no listing at All Music Guide and WP:MUSIC criteria. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Moeron. --Nehwyn 09:42, 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 thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BidClix[edit]

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:52, 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 thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casale Media[edit]

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:54, 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 thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PointCast Media[edit]

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:55, 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 thanks for completing nomination, but better to deal with this in one AfD. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising by the Seven Network[edit]

An incomplete AfD nomination by 61.7.156.24. This AfD appears to be related to the Ad-Up AfD. Scottmsg 16:56, 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. Worst, most dispirited AFD ever. Proto::type 11:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cazasoles[edit]

question notability Thamiel 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving_rationales_at_AFD for what your rationale should look like. Uncle G 17:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This, of course, is not Wikipedia policy; although I offer no opinion on what Wikipedia policy should be. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comment appears to be a non sequitur. Uncle G 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as no assertion of notability, although I do think people who give incoherent two-word noms should be rewarded by having the AfD speedy closed within an hour. Kavadi carrier 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Horrible nomination, but still fails WP:BIO and is fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 09:40, 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 redirected to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Clear the articles linking to the redirect and then propose it for deletion on RfD or via me.. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of state leaders in 1646 BC[edit]

I nominate the following pages for deletion (or redirect):

I created these articles before realizing that a list for each year would be superfluous (all three articles are identicle). I moved all information to List of state leaders in 1640s BC. Donnie Love 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G7) Caknuck 19:30, 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. --Core desat 03:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudden jihad syndrome[edit]

Neogolism that seems to be not all that verifiable, and one guy's WP:OR. Contested prod. Leuko 03:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SJS is an ongoing phenomenon Dr Pipes IS Updated developments and is aware of this Wiki contribution and approves of it and supplied 3 more instances to elucidate the scriptural basis for the syndrome & does so with out using words like Neogolism.KAOSKTRL — KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- That the article doesn't use the word "neologism" doesn't mean that the article isn't original research. So far, all that the article tells us is that this is a syndrome invented by Daniel Pipes, used in xyr on-line articles, and acknowledged by no-one else. Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. That means acknowledgement, and hence documentation, by people other than Daniel Pipes. Ideas that have yet to spread beyond their creators do not belong here, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. So please cite people other than Daniel Pipes documenting this purported syndrome. Uncle G 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article may never use the term "neologism", but that is exactly what this is, a neologism coined by Daniel Pipes that has not entered the broader lexicon of usage. As Uncle G stated above, this also is original research as evidenced by the fact that there is no supporting evidence that anyone else has picked up the concept and acknowledged or critiqued it (other than in distinctly non-reliable source blogs).--Isotope23 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism without widespread usage, and the article being original research. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it This is a new phenomenom and it will continue and more research will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs)

Delete - A WP:POV WP:OR by a WP:SPA without WP:RS. =))) --Nehwyn 09:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to violate a significant number of Wikipedia policies (as per above comments). In response to KAOSKTRL's comment, your comment seems to indicate that the topic is currently non-notable and non-verifiable. If it becomes notable and verifiable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 02:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. Come on people: be bold about these things!. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpecula cum Ansere[edit]

Unnecessary; see Vulpecula#History Ashadeofgrey 11:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When an article says "ARTICLETITLE is the old name for OTHERARTICLE", AFD should not be your first thought. Your first thought should be to merge that datum into OTHERARTICLE, which process results in a redirect from ARTICLETITLE to OTHERARTICLE, in line with our Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Uncle G 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It (technically) doesn't need to be merged; all the information is in the other article. Having said that, I probably should've redirected--Ashadeofgrey 18:01, 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad Riaz Bajwa[edit]

Prod notice removed without comment by User:Fouadbajwa. No assertion of notability against WP:BIO. And I'd guess "conflict of interest" under WP:COI Mereda 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this person fails WP:BIO. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability is a CSD motivation. Tagged as such. --Nehwyn 09:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I feel soory for Mr. Bajwa but the article has to go as per WP:BIO.--Marwatt 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is created mistakely, Mr. Bajwa might be trying to create a user page.

I would be obliged if a deletion be made with a procedure pasted to edit user page, that would be helpful for Mr. Bajwa. Regards A M. Khan 18:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator Mereda. Nileena joseph ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:27, 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 delete. (Quotes don't need merging - they're not the work of a Wikipedia author, and GFDL doesn't apply when moving them from one article to another). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yerzhan Ashykbayev[edit]

Non-notable individual whose article would not have been created had he not criticized Sacha Baron Cohen for his Borat performances. I would suggest merging any useful info into Kasymzhomart Tokayev, but none of this is particularly meaningful or notable, so just delete. KazakhPol 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the only relevant information here is with regard to Borat. I vote for the quotation to be merged into the Borat article and for this article to be deleted. -- Hux 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per proposal. - Francis Tyers · 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - He's not only relevant within the Borat debate, but because of his role. I say that if every U.S. Congressperson gets a page, Ashykbayev deserves one as well. Straughn 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Ashykbayev is the Foreign Ministry spokesman, not the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister is Kasymzhomart Tokayev. KazakhPol 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As KazakhPol implies, US members of Congress and Kazakh foreign ministry spokesmen are not equivalent in importance. The US parallel to Ashykbayev would be Gonzalo R. Gallegos, spokesman for the U.S. Dept. of State, who does not have a Wiki article, so under your logic Ashykbayev shouldn't have one either. -- Hux 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete Zaparojdik 23:16, 9 November 2006

Delete - Unless this individual has a greater claim to fame than his condemnation of Borat, there is no reason for him to have a separate article.Aelfthrytha 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think Foreign Ministry spokesman of every country is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. However, it's very hard to expand the current article. Most of the search results are only related to his comments about Borat. Jahangard 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KazakhPol and Aelfthrytha. --AlefZet 05:34, 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. --Ixfd64 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depletist[edit]

dicdef stub about a non-notable term. wikipediatrix 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT. --Nehwyn 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete. this term is senseful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.36.27 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT, NPOV, WP:V, dicdef, etc.. This quote is bursting with POV: "An individual or group demonstrating apparent, negligent or reckless disregard for the environmental consequences of their actions." Dictionary definitions don't belong in Wikipedia.--WaltCip 16:48, 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. --Ixfd64 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under pressure (my chem & the used song)[edit]

Bad article on a cover of a previously released song, that can be covered on the original's page. --Jamdav86 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already covered to a degree in the My Chemical Romance article. It is also covered in the Under Pressure article. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect (awkward title) Danny Lilithborne 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirecting, as per above. --Nehwyn 09:33, 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. --Ixfd64 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Symington[edit]

Long-standing hoax article about a Scottish playright whose plays are all famous brands of cigarettes (Benson & Hedges, Marlborough Red, Kensitas). Has been tagged as a hoax before, and Colin1873 has raised it again. All relevant google hits are mirrors of WP. Mr Stephen 18:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: The Bensons' Hedge

no problem ;). was just complete luck that i found it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin1873 (talk • contribs) .
Delete both. There's barely any information on Arthur Symington or The Bensons' Hedge when I do a search. Good catch :-) Roaming27 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable with no assertion or reliable sources. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 04:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoaxes. --Nehwyn 09:32, 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 A7 + G10 + G1 + IAR. Luna Santin 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saintstephen[edit]

Not notable or verifiable. Could not verify existence of his books. Leibniz 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Either this guy's totally unknown or doesn't exist at all. Absolutely nothing here is verifiable. Fan-1967 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable, and if it was, not notable. Hello32020 20:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I am quite verifiable, as are the slight accomplishments included in the wiki entry here referred. All of my books on this topic are currently available. I am arguably notable, as evidenced by a lifetime of dedication to the philosophies referenced within the wiki entry. And, I exist quite nicely, thank you.

However, upon review of the Wiki guidelines per entries of the sort under consideration, it is understandable that adjustments might be made. I might add that upon perusal of pages of this sort for comparison, I found mine fraught with far less of the self-aggrandizement and project-hyping so often found in vanity-type pages.

Thank you for your time keeping wiki nice and scrubbed, although as regards this occult topic, I might advise deeper research.

Thanks,

s

The wheel turns. All is grist— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs) — Quadmona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Saying you are verifiable is very nice. Can you provide any Reliable Sources to back up the assertion? We have been unable to find anything. Fan-1967 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity. As if it wasn't bad enough already. Leibniz 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add vandalism. He just removed this AFD from the daily log. Fan-1967 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was fast!

Again and understand, wiki is not my "thing", and i claim no vested interest in this matter. I, "saintstephen", have basically been having fun with the opensource nature of the database, posting absolute facts as regards my life. Specifically, my life in the Black Magick Community. And why not. In this specific arena, I have few peers.

Out of habitual curiosity i went to the reliable source link offered and scanned the guidelines, quickly, regarding scholerly research and the like. It would seem that deletion, or amendment, could be appropo, even though thousands others are aware of various established facts within the short bio.

I, again, have no personal interest in supporting the facts further.

Have at it. We suckle at the teat of half a`dozen ivory towers.

Oh. Sorry about the snip AFD from the daily log or whatever. i dont even know what the hell that thing is. it looked like a demon at the gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadmona (talk • contribs)

Strong delete. I think the page's own statement "All saintstephen will ever really be known for was coining the phrase:" followed by a phrase with zero ghits beyond this wiki page itself (and a mirror of it) pretty much sums up this completely WP:NN WP:BIO. DMacks 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It is pointless, vile, and borders on subversive.

delete now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audiograbber[edit]

Article gives no indication of satisfying, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SOFTWARE Whisp e ring 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully unsourced, no claim to WP:SOFTWARE notability. --Nehwyn 09:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, non-notable. WillyWonty 23:32, 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. --Ixfd64 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk[edit]

A complete mess of an article, POV, lies.... The 'sources' appear to be dead links Armanalp 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept and expanded or merged into Mustafa Kemal Ataturk --AW 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- have you read the article?Armanalp 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it needs expansion. I'm sure there are more valid critcisms of him, but they aren't in that page. --AW 20:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't anything in the page (including its history) that's worth saving, and we don't need this page for the purposes of expansion. Any additional facets of this person not already addressed in what we already have can be addressed neutrally in Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. We don't need this non-neutral fork. "Criticism of X" titles are bad ideas for article titles. They are one-sided by their very construction, which leads directly to non-neutrality. Uncle G 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - as Uncle G has said, anything that's been here before (as in, before what appears to be a nationalist IP editing spree) can be merged with the man himself. If and when the list of criticisms gets larger, then we can hive them off to a separate article. Before then, it's a moot point. Additionally, the original draft of all of this contains serious errors of historical fact - Kemal had no leadership position in the Young Turks, although he certainly subscribed to their ideology. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G, Big Haz. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it can be fully sourced, it is WP:NPOV by definition. --Nehwyn 09:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Pavel Vozenilek 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armanalp. E104421 23:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already some mention of criticism in the Atatürk article anyways. Khoi khoi 01:21, 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. --Ixfd64 00:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HWE Wrestling[edit]

PROD removed without explanation by the articles creater. Non-notable backyard wrestling organization (which is already grounds to delete), with only 6 employess. No assertion of notability either. TJ Spyke 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability and almost complete lack of Google results. Prolog 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An amateur wrestling competition among teenagers? Oh, come on. --Nehwyn 09:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Shot and Botched 15:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WillyWonty 23:33, 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. --Ixfd64 00:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Team Real Estate[edit]

The article makes no claim of notability Abeg92 19:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the largest estate firm in California is a possible claim to notability, I'd say. In this case, however, it's a completely unsourced claim. Clearly fails WP:CORP external sources criterion. --Nehwyn 09:27, 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. --Ixfd64 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workbook, Inc.[edit]

Company does not satisfy WP:CORP AW 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Hello32020 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty much a Vanispamcruftisement --AW 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only 82 Ghits. Kavadi carrier 03:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 09:25, 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. --Ixfd64 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Nations Gameplay[edit]

Completely unsourced game guide for a non-notable online browser game that was deleted at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Nations (2). I'd have speedied it based on those afds if it weren't a contested prod. —Cryptic 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game guide, OR, game appears to fail WP:WEB. Shimeru 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is really unambiguously a game guide. Kavadi carrier 03:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the game. This is a very good guide, by the author himself to a relatively popular game. It's not full of garbage, nor pointless, it should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.111.154 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for game guides, which this article is, by your admission. Kavadi carrier 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If the game doesn't deserve an article, how could this? Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely, per WP:NOT. --Nehwyn 09:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I play this game and while a comprehensive guide certainly is useful, Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place for it. Most of the information in this article is available on the site anyway, and the fact that the game itself doesn't have an article should be enough cause for deletion. Corporal 03:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In layman's terms, it's a violation of WP:NOT. In my terms, I've never played this game before and I couldn't care less.--WaltCip 16:51, 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. W.marsh 14:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organlegging[edit]

An article on a fictional crime from a novel, which would seem to be non-notable. At best, this should be merged, but I would say this is fan cruft. Harr o5 21:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could really stand to be rewritten from an out-of-universe perspective, or at the very worst smerged into Organ donation#Bioethical issues in organ donation. I do find it a bit hard to sympathize with a characterization of one of Larry Niven's novels as "non-notable". Also see [24], [25], [26], and [27]: the name may not have stuck, but the crime is no longer fictional. —Cryptic 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge A major element of several stories by a well-known writer of fiction. Might possibly be merged per Cryptic, with a summary placed in the appropriate section of the Known Space article. Shimeru 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or Merge as the problem of organ harvesting is itself real, and notable. See for example Organ harvesting in China. That said, the article is probably unduly concentrated solely on the Niven works, and should be expanded to cover other works of fictoin that discuss it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Mr. Niven invented the term for this practice, but it also exists in other fictional works... and is sadly now real (Organ harvesting in China). The article must mention these... and should, for its notability improves in direct proportion. Alba 14:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Editing needs noted on page. Alba 14:55, 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 Speedied per csd#a7. Glen 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan cannon[edit]

Prod removed by anon. Homemade video (made on a Playstation 2) that has, per the article, been seen by "over 50 people". Not in the same galaxy with a notable movie project. Fan-1967 21:14, 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.--Hús ö nd 01:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisla vodka[edit]

Not notable - google search shows wiki mirrors, search for Polish string "wódka Wisła" doesn't show anything notable. Seems like a hoax or an ad for some minor product, and the language is very 'addy' (much loved as a highly-regarded export vodka and a sought after drink by Poles the world over)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kavadi Jim62sch 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, if it really exists, perhaps a taste-test and research would be in order? :) --Ouro 07:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fully unsourced. --Nehwyn 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Almost patent nonsense. And my teacher's Polish - he's never mentioned this. ;) Non-notable. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm not saying it's non-notable because my teacher doesn't know of its existence. There's no verification of notability. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 01:00, 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 with a number of suggestions to move or merge. Please defer renaming and merge-related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Balmain[edit]

Please could someone explain the important of this list to me. In my opinion, it is not notable (and nor are the vast majority of articles it links to) Computerjoe 's talk 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one-sentence stubs are a bigger issue than this article. Keep this one, merge the tiny stubs in, and rename it Pubs in Balmain or something of the sort. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think that this list is that useful, but I can't really see anything in policy as to why we should get rid of it. Unenthusiastic Keep. Lankiveil 00:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Balmain's pubs are of significant historic interest. Most date back to Balmain's industrial era in the 19th Century. I'll admit lots of work is needed on the articles though. Chovain 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that at least one book has been written on this topic, the best option would be a Pubs in Balmain article. Certainly, this is a list of substubs. Alternatively, it might be better to have a section referring to Balmain's historic pubs as we already have a picture of one. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- and merge the linked articles into one main article on the book, or a referenced list. - Longhair\^talk 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article and Merge stubs as per Longhair. JROBBO 07:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Pubs in Balmain", write an encyclopaedic text about their cultural importance, and merge the individual articles into it. --Nehwyn 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge all those stubs, then write something interesting about the subject. --Michael Johnson 12:31, 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.--Hús ö nd 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battleball[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable topic. Fails a Google test. Also violates WP:NOT, in that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Slowking Man 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per lack of reliable sources. --W.marsh 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current contents, although there is a fairly notable board game by the same name which should probably have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gekedo 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be provided. --Nehwyn 09:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and W.marsh. Nihiltres 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. WillyWonty 23:36, 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 (continue cleanup though, obviously) W.marsh 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nas vs. Jay-Z[edit]

Completely uncited and mostly unverifiable. The article consists largely of song lyrics which probably violates a bunch of copyright standards. Reads a lot like original research. I don't think this is even that encyclopedic even if it was cleaned up. Metros232 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Cleanup the Deletion policy page state that articles which need improvement and has unverified information, may not be appropriate for AfD. I tagged the article less than a week ago. Please allow the editors of the article an opportunity to fix the article before deleting. Subject is notable, as it pertains to two of the more famous recording artists of the past ten years and may have a place in Wikipedia, once cleaned up. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely encyclopedic and notable. Needs cleanup, but there are plenty of documented sources for the feud and its epilogue. hateless 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like original research unless reliable sources are found and mentioned on the page. --Nehwyn 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with Cleanup - this is absolutely a notable event in hip hop culture; however, it clearly needs to be substantially rewritten, sourced, and the copyright violations taken care of. Chubbles1212 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with Cleanup - Reason item is majorly unsourced is because the item was growing large. It was originally part of the Hip hop rivalries and I moved it, with additional informations added. I don't know how people can argue it should be erased soley for original research without knowing what the content is actually about.

If this article is deleted, at least the whole thing should be moved back and merged with original article. But it's too lumpy there. It is uncited as-is, but it's a rap lyric. How do you cite a source of rap lyrics and it's metaphor?dooly00000 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until reliable sources are found, this is nothing but original research. T Rex | talk 02:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that "unverifiability" and articles needing work are not suited for AfD per the AfD page. If the issue is the amount of cleanup the article needs please allow the editors time to perform the cleanup. If after an attempt, the article isn't salvageable, then bring it here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean the article needs work, but the "beef" itself is notable (i.e. it was reported about in publications, I believe.) My first instinct was delete, because I thought it was going to be a comparison of the relative qualities of the two rappers - but it's not. It's an article about what appears to be a well-publicised dispute, and therefore notable. --TheOtherBob 17:12, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilva Liepiņa[edit]

Non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 22:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An anchor of a nationally-broadcast news program is usually notable. --22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs) .
Keep. Unless you'd also delete say, Dan Rather. Pursey 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Latvia is a tiny country. She is not nearly as notable as Dan Rather, objectively. I first found this article when I was clearing prods, and decided to extend the prod by two days in order to give time for a Latvian wikipedian to come and opine on the ntability of the subject. Latvian sysop "Feens" told me that she is a TV anchor, "but it's not like she's commonly talked about". I deleted it then, but TBT asked me to restore after the fact, see history. It appears that she is an undistinguished micro-country TV anchor with a fan following and some sexy pics. This is not notability. - crz crztalk 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Latvia's population is 2,307,000. National notability there is not insignificant. --Oakshade 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as national television anchor who is much better looking than Dan Rather. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now we're deciding to keep bios based on how good the subject looks? BTW the image is unsourced and I tagged it as such. But keep the article per TBT. Kavadi carrier 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster. ^_^ The subject is actually notable, we need to avoid WP:BIAS creep whenever possible. Yamaguchi先生 05:52, 9 November 2006

Keep - I'd say a news anchor on a national level is notable enough to be here. --Nehwyn 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, in Latvia there is no other level :) - crz crztalk 03:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from being sexy (unfortunately the image "Ilva Liepiņa seductive" was deleted as not fair use) there no information for even minimal stub. Very weak assertion of notability: revealing bras and expertise on giving blowjobs [28] (added by author of the article) does not make one standing out of the crowds these days. The enquiry by Crzrussian on Latvian Wiki (Oct 31) was answered [29] with No njelzja govoritj, chto vsje toljko o njei i govorjat. :) (one cannot say that everybody is talking about her). The article Sandra Freiberga should be examined for notability as well. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National news presenter. --Oakshade 00:51, 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 userfy (already done) and delete. --Core desat 03:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Ann Crecente[edit]

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Murders of this type are lamentably common. Even the existence of memorial funds/scholarships does not confer notability Robert A.West (Talk) 22:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. West appears to have had his feathers ruffled. Because I deigned to question his continued removal of what I considered to be relevant information regarding the Daniel Brandt article he has decided to attempt to delete an article of mine.

Fact: This article is of consequence because it has since become the basis for a charitable organization with 501(c)(3) status that was created in order to inform young women about potential abusive relationships.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas State Legislature will be creating a law in January '07 in her name and memory to award diplomas posthumously to students that died during their Senior year of High School.

Fact: This article is of consequence because the Texas Psychological Foundation has created a memorial grant in perpetuity of $5000 / year for Graduate work related to studying violence against women.

Robert A. West's feathers aside, it is absurd that Wikipedia articles be so capriciously and callously deleted. Drew30319 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although a memorial fund has been created and a scholarship will be created in 2007, neither of these are primary points in the article. This murder has been covered by all major networks in addition to AP and UPI. Drew30319 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad and regrettable that this happened. My condolences to the families. Delete. --humblefool ® 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I find it rather sad that Drew30319 seems to think that political campaign style "facts" are a good idea. -Amarkov ^babble 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deletion of articles should not be interpreted as callous or somehow denigrating, and framing the issue as having the subject be "victimized" again is artificial and unnecessary. hateless 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What at Tradgedy, bu Wikipedia isn't a Mermorial. --Don't mess with Scott. 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had someone I knew well die in a situation like this but I realize it's not notable. Putting this in AfD seems to me neither capricious nor callous. For future reference, it may also be a good idea not to start your defense with a personal attack, no matter how subtle. --Leftmostcat 06:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now but bring some content back later: Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the scholarships do not confer notability. A Texas state law caused by this case, however, would make the event notable in my opinion. However, that's a future event and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So until the Texas state legislature does pass such a law, Ms. Crecente's memory, while worthy of honor, is unencyclopedic and doesn't belong here. But "Jennifer's law" would. So don't despair, you don't completely lose the argument. Alba 14:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but copy to user space first and rewrite as Jennifer's law. Addhoc 15:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder Deleted articles can be undeleted at any time if circumstances change, so even if we failed to userfy, the content would not need to be redone if a notable law is passed. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the constructive comment. Addhoc 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I agree with Robert A.West, this should probably userfied (the work done on sourcing along justifies it), and then brought back if the law in her name is actually passed. I commend Drew30319's efforts on this article, but I do suggest that he does not resort to personal attacks in debates in the future. They definitely do not help. --Nehwyn 19:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Addhoc who deserves credit for the userfication idea. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - In my mind, this individual comes very close to satisfying the WP:Bio criterion that specifies:

"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated."

Clearly this is not an assassination, but the event was newsworthy and the memorial fund that has developed as a result gives Crecente a certain amount of renown. Based on the path this debate is taking, it is fairly clear the article space won't stay, but by userfying the body we can give the author a chance to find enough news sources to satisfy notability by the aforementioned guideline. →Bobby← 14:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. I think the doctrine that "murder victims are not notable" needs to be scrapped. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a subject for a policy page, but ask yourself this: worldwide, a person is murdered every minute. We aren't going to add a half-million memorial articles every year, so how do we decide? Are the relatives of Wikipedians more worthy of mention than others? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no doctrine that murder victims are not notable. The doctrine is that being a murder victim does not confer notability. That isn't a bad thing. Very few things automatically confer notability upon someone. -Amarkov ^babble 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a search for both "userfy" as well as "userfication" and haven't found any explanation of what this means. Could somebody please (with a minimum of abbreviations) explain to me what it is that I'm supposed to do in order to retain the work done on this article? The state senator that is sponsoring "Jennifer's Bill" was re-elected and we have every expectation that the bill will pass. At that point I'd like to be able to re-use the appropriate content.

Also, although it does not matter with respect to the apparent direction that the article is headed, it is not just a memorial fund and scholarship. There is an actual charity that has been created. The organization is incorporated and has received 501(c)(3) status by the IRS.

Again, this isn't stated to change any minds, but for clarification.

I feel comfortable with waiting until the legislation passes to be able to add the relevant info. Thanks for the constructive information. Drew30319 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you, here. For future reference, just copy the content to a subpage of your user page. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Jennifer Ann's Group well: I can think of several friends (two now deceased) who desperately needed that sort of advice. Objectively, however, it is not notable, and cannot confer notability on Jennifer. Simply getting 501(c)3 approval is not notable. Any competent attorney can shepherd any reasonable proposal through the process. The routine publication of a press release or interview announcing the organization is termed "trivial" press coverage, and doesn't really count. I've served on the boards of a few organizations with more press coverage than this new org -- none of which I believe are notable enough to merit their own articles. There is a strong recommendation (WP:AUTO) not to write articles about yourself, your family members or organizations in which one is involved. The idea is that, if the person or organization is really notable, someone else will write an article in due time, and that you cannot really be objective about it. Any strongly-notable organization has critics. Even Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama have them. If an organization has not yet attracted critics, it may be too early for an article on that subject. Robert A.West (Talk) 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The deceased individual does not appear to meet WP:BIO standards, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. GRBerry 16:29, 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 - Yomangani ^talk 12:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Churches Hollow Road[edit]

non-notable county road Brianyoumans 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after excluding Wikipedia and mirrors, the only result Google gives is a list of roads. [30] Kavadi carrier 02:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim to notability given. --Nehwyn 18:55, 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 10:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drugware[edit]

Non-notable protologism. Very few instances of the term on the web, and these point back to this page or the one page linked from here. Worse, there are no examples of "drugware" on either this page or the other webpages.Calbaer 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few GHits on the web, but only 9 on newsgroups, which may indicate inflation of the term. Unless more reliable sources are mentioned in the article for its usage, I'd go with delete. --Nehwyn 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 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. The concern is reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and none have been presented that satisfy guidelines for inclusion - neither forum posts, passing mentions, Google hit counts nor Wikipedia editors qualify, as Wickethewok and Yomangani have adequately explained. Consequently there is no reason to discount the arguments that came before Bones' posts, and consensus and policy are for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BZPower[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}}.

A web forum that seems to fail WP:WEB and WP:V. I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses. Googling only brings up a few dozen hits not from the BZPower itself. Was previously nominated but was kept as apparently users back then didn't need to present any sort of logical argument. Anyway, the lack of independent coverage means it fails WP:V and it doesn't look like it meets WP:WEB. As is, the entire article is original research. Fails the Alexa test @ ~156k ranking if you're into that sort of thing. Delete for the reasons listed above. Wickethewok 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the "As is, the entire article is original research" claim, see this part of that policy: "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about... An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Seems this is being ignored by you--just want to make sure this is brought up. As far as I can see, being a primary source myself, there is only a tiny amount that qualifies as OR, if anything. The basic facts of the site are easily verifiable, are correct, and are provided by a primary source, myself and others. Again, the issue is that more citations are needed, and as shown below, they can be. And let's not lose sight of the main reason the site is notable, as I stated in the last AFD, which concluded it should stay: "But I beleive that every site of note in the Bionicle community deserves reference; we're talking about the fan community of LEGO's most successful line, that helped save the company, and it is also the company that is more in-tune with its online fan community than virtually any other. There is just plain no justification for any arguement that sites like BZP or MoD do not deserve their own encyclopedic reference, unless you want to argue that the LEGO company is not noteworthy. I see nobody arguing that." --Bonesiii 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How'd this survive the first time? Delete, indeed. --humblefool ® 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --authraw 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems I have voted prematurely--I have seen many-a forum article go down under WP:WEB, and after a quick search for "www.bzpower.com" on Google I found nothing relevant. I assumed that this was evident of a lack of notability, but I now see that "BZPower" would have at least been a better search, and I wasn't thinking about non-web sources. I will withdraw my vote until I can see the course of discussion pan out below. --authraw 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my removed prod on this article. --- RockMFR 02:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to seem nitpicky, but what "prod", i.e. what was the content of it, and how is it relevant to deletion? --Bonesiii 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. By the way this is not the "2nd nomination", this article has been AfDed three times previously.
- First AfD - outcome was keep
- The real second AfD - outcome was keep but suspicious given SPA involvement.
- Third AfD - outcome was no consensus after discounting SPAs. Kavadi carrier 02:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'm not going to take a stance at the moment, but I'd just like to comment on all of this.

First off, Wickethewok, you asked for sources 5 days ago. Do you expect things to just fly up within 5 days? Two weeks, perhaps is a fairer time, but you didn't even allow for a week.

Second, you say it fails the WP:WEB critieria. Then explain how BZpower was once linked to on BIONICLE.com, the official BIONICLE website, and has been noted in many online articles and such, yet you say they still fail?

Third, I'd like to comment in this SPA rumor. I am a pretty well respected BS01 staffer, and BZP member. I know most of those who said "yes" to keep it, and they were not SPA's by any means. ~U— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.11.63 (talk • contribs)

Short on time so hope I'm close to following procedures for commenting here, lol--my comments on this are summed up here: [[31]]. The opening comment on this page states "I asked for sources on the talk page awhile ago and haven't received any responses." -- I've been watching the talk page over the past month and this request came only last week. Not sure how wikipedia's policies define "a while" but that doesn't fit my definition. ;) (All due respect.) And just a summary reading of these policies that BZP supposedly doesn't fit shows that yes, it does--the evidence just isn't cited yet (how could it be within a mere week?). Got real life to spend time on now, so must go... For starters though, BZP is often mentioned on other websites, and has been mentioned in print journals such as the AFOL magazine (adult fan of LEGO), so those citations shouldn't be that hard to find for anyone who has time to search... And of course, it has been very relevant to the LEGO company, so at least by my definition of "relevant" no sound arguement can be made that it isn't (I thought this was cleared up last time, lol). Keep --Bonesiii 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 day waiting period with 5 days for AFD. If the information can't be verified in 10 days, something ain't right. And really, its not like there hasn't been warning - I mean, the article has been nominated for AFD 3 times already apparently since its creation 1.5 years ago. I could've even just nominated the article with no warning, but I figured that giving people twice the amount of time that is required by deletion process would be nice. If someone comes up with some sources, like, a month from now, the article can be reinstated, albeit with the removal of all the OR. Wickethewok 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[D]eletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)."

Assuming there's any merit to this claim, here's some evidence real quick (that can be added to the article) as per the guidelines claimed not to fit the article:

1) Google search: 77,900 hits. 18000 or so without the BZP domain name; admiddetedly a few of those are just the bzcommunity old domain name, but just browse the list yourself; that's a minority: http://www.google.com/search?q=BZPower+-site:www.bzpower.com&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=0&sa=N And as mentioned before; fifth hit on Google search for Bionicle, topped only by Bionicle.com, Scholastic's Bionicle page, and of course the wikipedia entry for Bionicle: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Bionicle

2) Coverage on other websites not affiliated with BZP? BZP is the most-covered Bionicle fansite there is. A few examples: http://forums.maskofdestiny.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=10 http://www.mnonlinev3.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1181&st=240 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0211/S00055.htm http://www.lugnet.com/cool/

3) Also, as far as "previous warning" the past AFD nominations are hardly surprising--BZP has many enemies (see the Criticism section of the article), and from my experience, that's what motivated those proposals, not wikipedia policy. By the way, wiki policy did come up, and according to the first AFD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BZPower BZP does meet Alexa standards. No idea why that is now taken the opposite way, but something seems inconsistent here?

4) The vanity accusation is certainly a fair concern, and I of course am a staff member there, so you'd be correct to be cautious about what I say. However, that also means I know what I'm talking about, and as I stated, the policies being linked to appear to qualify BZPower for inclusion. And as I said in the last AFD, we don't need wikipedia advertising. ;) We became the most popular Bionicle forum long before wikipedia ever had an article on us (and we did not originate this article, as stated in the first AFD). And finally, if I was interested in having an article for advertisement's sake, why exactly would I be leading efforts to include a fair criticism section?

5) It appears that there's a tendency here to discount anything an expert on a subject knows--this is a little disturbing, and I hope that will not be the case with my logic; the guideline at the top of this page makes the claim that it's the logic that the decision is based on, not a head count. And for the record, I may be a staff member now but I had no idea BZP existed for 2 years after it was founded, so I would consider myself to be partly an independant source (and if you want actual independent sources, see the google search :)). This "original research" guideline appears to be questionable, as stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28web%29#Expand_The_Criteria.21.21 , though the basic idea makes sense to me. But the facts listed on this article are well-known and often mentioned on sites outside of BZP, such as Mask of Destiny, Mata Nui Online (again, see the google search); they are hardly "original" research. They just need cited better, admittedly.

7) Also note; much of the notability claims made were stated by Greg Farshtey, the author of the Bionicle books, though he didn't print the statements, lol. He is not affiliated with BZPower, but LEGO company instead; many of the citations in the article already cite his statements, so this would count as well as independant sources, as I understand it, and is easily verified simply by asking him (member name=GregF at BZP, he's also on Mask of Destiny with his own forum division). It appears possible these citations are being discounted merely because they are posts on BZPower, which to me would be invalid since they were not posted by BZPower staff but a LEGO employee; and not just any but the author of the books, the comics, lead member of the Bionicle story team, etc. Also probably worth noting that two BZPower members had the published Bionicle Encyclopedia (see Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Bionicle-Encyclopedia-Stickers-Greg-Farshtey/dp/0439745616) dedicated to them for their help in providing the content of that book (Crystal Matrix, founder of Biosector01 reference and my fellow BZP Reference Master, and Pekel, current owner of half of BS01 (note that that site has ongoing issues with a technical glitch that is still being resolved but was online at the time the encyclopedia was being written; details here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showforum=45), one of the BZP reference keepers and forum assistants, and a contest I ran on BZP, incidentally, decided a small part of the content to that book ( http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=156654 ). You can see the discussions ongoing currently for the second edition of that book on BZPower here: http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=229663

8) So again, my conclusion: logically I see no need to delete the article prematurely. The "Trivial coverage" and "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" criteria can be met under WP:WEB, as can the WP:V verifiability requirement (and part of that has already been met). If citations can't be provided later, say in a month, that action would make sense; either way, I am willing to take the time later to make sure a re-added article has appropriate citations. It just wouldn't be very helpful to delete the archives of the current article. ;) Heck, just in this comment alone I've got tons of citations; will try to find time to add them this weekend to the article. --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten days to find sources is plenty of time in this context (although it might not always be). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I humbly request an explanation of why ten days currently is plenty of time? Besides the beginnings of fulfilling that request cited above, I'd point out to you that since the people the request was directed at are currently very busy with other things, this would be an "not always" instance. ;) This AFD was proposed during that time; that is why a mere five days wasn't sufficient. Your comment seems rather subjective... --Bonesiii 13:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BZPower is one of the key websites for Bionicle and the larger LEGO fan club in general. The latest Alexa ranking has BZPower at 164,355. LUGNET, a large LEGO fansite as well, it's AFOL Brickjournal Issue 4 has an ad for BZPower on page 62 and BZPower administration contributed to the issue by writing articles on pages 14 and 81 of the same issue. I hope people will realize that although BZP has exerted a large amount of hegemony over the web (not many non-BZP sources about BZP) it does deserve an non-biased article because it is one of the largest fansites for a very popular toy line. 69.15.24.122 13:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains[reply]

Fan sites and advertisements are not reliable sources of information. Wickethewok 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lugnet one is, according to the policy you yourself linked to: "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria... The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." [Bolded emphasis mine.] Also note: "The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the site... This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books..." See #7 of facts listed above {bolded emphasis again mine]. The advertisement in the Brickjournal issue was only part of the citation given, remember--two articles were also submitted, as well as other references. --Bonesiii 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that BZPower is not the subject of the the LUGNET article at all. Its only mentioned a few times by the author, who also happens to the webmaster of the site in question. Wickethewok 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check out page 82 of the the issue ;). How can you read that and say BZP is "not the subject... at all"? Also, how does he "just happen" to be the webmaster of the site? You really think that Binky would be considered for the job of webmaster for LEGO.com if he was just another AFOL on Lugnet, not an accomplished admin of BZP? That is called being a subject. Not the main subject, sure, but the term "main" does not appear in the guidelines. In fact, your comment actually backs me up even further if you look at the exception, trivial mention. Obviously, Bink's mention of BZP was not trivia. I really don't see why you are still arguing here--the policy says that if any one of the requirements is met, the article qualifies. So BZP does, does it not?

Again, no disrespect, but I'm not seeing any recognition made of the large amount of evidence given above, just a shaky arguement made against one of the many points... You wanted a logical arguement--well, I'm a logician, so doing my best to provide that--hopefully you can see the logic here. :) --Bonesiii 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as to what Bones said. Also, I've looked over the article and it only has one "citation needed" template, which happens to be after "Farshtey has also joined many other Bionicle-themed forums." I'm not saying this is the only place it needs a citation, but, it is the only part you guys say needs a citation. This sentence appears to be difficult, if not impossible, to find a citation to. You COULD link the the MoD section for Greg, but that doesn't cover the other sites. I already added a citation to the Greg/BR thing, and Bones could probably find a suitable citation for the other sentence. Thus, Wickethewok's assertion that we need sources could be answered.--Bionicleman ^(talk) 16:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did notice that was the only line that was marked--and that's the one line in the article that appears innaccurate, actually. I didn't add that, not sure who did, but the correct statement, as far as I know, is that Greg is a member of both BZP and MoD, no other fansites. If that one line is what this debate is really about, then there really isn't a problem here--it can easily be corrected. --Bonesiii 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleared up the mess over the lack of citation on GregF's accounts elsewhere. He has joined Mask of Destiny and MNOnlinev3. I have linked to both of his accounts; they are genuine. I do not see why this article should be deleted because of a lack of that citation; it has been cited now. 69.15.24.122 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Rockymountains[reply]

Keep-- Bonesiii makes some very good points. This page needs to be cited much better, but it certainly is both notable and verifiable. --authraw 14:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was tempted to close this, but instead I'll give my opinion as to why it should be deleted. Firstly, the vast majority of the article is original research - to qualify for inclusion the facts need to be cited from reliable sources, not written from the experiences of somebody who is personally involved. Secondly, the article has been around for over a year and has already gone through a number of AFDs, so the claim that there have only been two weeks available to provide references is nonsense. All articles need referencing from day one - if you can't find a reliable reference for the information you want to include then don't include it. Thirdly, the sources provided in an attempt to prove its notability are either trivial mentions or not what we regard as reliable. BZPower is not the subject of the article quoted above - it is mentioned in passing by somebody with a vested interest. Arguing that its notability is intrinsically linked to Lego is a fallacy. If it is kept, any editor would be quite entitled to strip it back to the couple of facts verifiable from the sources. Yomangani ^talk 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Wonders of the Medieval World[edit]

This article is about a list with no historical origins and is not and cannot be quality encyclopedic content.

I don't really see any good reason this article should exist. First of all, there is no evidence that such a list existed in any historical context. Secondly, there is no definitive list--it's basically a compendium of top sights lists in various travel guides. Third, many of the sites listed are not of Medieval origin (i.e., the Taj Mahal, Stonehenge, The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa, most of the Great Wall of China, the Hagia Sophia and the Leaning Tower of Pisa--the bulk of the list).

I recommend deleting this list to avoid further confusion. Phil Bastian 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better references can be found. The article itself states that it's "a list whose origin and make-up is unknown. No scholarly resource is known to mention it..." This plus the overwhelming reliance on one website as a source brings up WP:V concerns. Shimeru 00:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I wrote this article, actually re-wrote it. I did a lot of research and could not find any scholarly source that mentions it (which is probably original research on my part to say so in the article). I suspect this list is real and was created by Enlightenment or Romantic era authors (late 17th to mid-19th centuries), which is why many of the sites are not technically "medieval" - this was before clear lines of periodization came about in the 19th century - but obviously after the word Medieval was created in the Enlightenment era. This is similar to the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World list, which was actually created by Medieval authors who were romanticizing the ancient world. Many sources mention the list, and its exact make-up will change depending - this is typical of the "wonders" genre.

To summarize:

Just because a list has many vicissitudes doesn't mean it can't have an article. Magna Carta has this same problem, there is no single Magna Carta. It's really more of a type or genre than a single list.
The list is probably real from either the Enlightenment or Romantic eras, based on word etymology of "medieval", the choice of sites, and what is known about other "wonders" lists - making lists of "wonders" is a common genre that has been on-going with every generation since the ancient Greeks. Romanticism in particular is defined by its fascination and "romanticizing" the Middle Ages.
The way the article is worded now may be original research on my part and should not preclude that there really are some scholarly sources that discuss this particular wonders list.

I hope others might take an interest in helping further research it, and refine the wording of the article. Also I would not be adverse to merging it into a section of the Seven Wonders of the World article, at least until it could justify a split with stronger sources. -- Stbalbach 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Stbalbach above. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did a re-search of Google Books and came up with some new sources which puts the list in historical context, it's not a fake. I removed my speculations which are original research. -- Stbalbach 03:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my vote. Well done with the sources. Shimeru 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- while I am away from my sources at the present, once the classical list of 7 Wonders became known to the medieval world, then-contemporary lists began being created. I agree that there was no one definitive list, but that ought nto to block an article summarising which artefacts were the leading contenders. -- Simon Cursitor 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stbalbach above. --Nehwyn 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete ~~Delete~~ the sourcing just shows that someone considered that some of these 11 wonders to be among a non-existant canonical seven (to mirror the ancient world). The problems are as myriad as the potential sources: like a list of the seven best films of all time or the seven most important inventions, or the seven most influential ideas, etc. Pure POV collection. Also problematic is that most of these 11 wonders were not "of the Medieval World"; best I understand the medieval times really only apply to the so-called Western World and are somewhat bounded (roughly, hence ambiguously) by the fall of Rome (476) and the fall of Constantinople (1453). The term is usually reserved for the "Western World" because these events had great meaning there and would have been just random dates elsewhere. Using the roughly 1000 year period to define the Medieval: of the 11 items listed as the "Seven Wonders", only 5 -- Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, the Cairo Citadel, Ely Cathedral, and Cluny Abbey, -- clearly fit in the time frame (2 of these 5 are not considered part of the Western World to which the term medieval pertains). Another 2 of the 11 may squeak in but only if we allow (POV) them: construction of the Great Wall of China continued into the period, but the majority appears to pre-date it; conversely, although construction of the Leaning Tower of Pisa continued into the 1600s, the majority fits the dates. The Great Wall also is not part of the Western World. Stonehenge (prehistoric), the Colosseum (1st Century), and the Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa (2nd Century), all pre-date Medieval times. I could find no sourcing for the date of construction of the Porcelain Tower of Nanjing, but it is outside the Western World. Conclusion: the list is purely a POV selection of other POV selections based on no objective criteria and is therefore not encyclopedic: sourced or otherwise. Carlossuarez46 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. at Wikipedia, not only are we allowed to write about other people's POV's, we are encouraged to do so. Verifiability, Not Truth. See my comments above about when this list was created, and what "medieval" meant to them. It is a modernism to hold this very old list up to current professional standards and then tear it down as inaccurate. Inaccurate to who? It's probably not even an academic list, more akin to the tastes of popular culture sometime between the late 17th and 19th centuries. -- Stbalbach 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the article, it should better be titled Late 17th through 19th century views of what constituted the seven wonders of the medieval world, and the article's text would have to be significantly altered to buy into that proposition, and the sourcing should be of material or quoting material of that vintage, rather than late 20th and early 21st century travel guides. Since none of that is the fact, I stand by my position that this article is an uncomprehensive POV attempt by the editors here to identify 11 "wonders" without particular regard to time or place and label them the Seven Wonders of the Medieval World. That is POV, not writing about POV. Carlossuarez46 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncomprehensive" is not a reason to AfD, that's called a Stub, Start-class or B-class article. As for being "POV", please do delete or change anything you believe to be POV, we can work that out on the article talk page. The article makes no claim to being an authoritative list of the Seven Wonders, in fact just the opposite, it has many qualifiers. Nor are the sources just recent travel guides. Have you read the article lately? -- Stbalbach 02:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice use of a straw man argument, Stbalbach, no wonder your keep arguments cause delete votes. Oh, and by the way, I'll edit whatever I please. Your protectionist stand combined with a keep just confirms that the article is meant to be POV and any POV that conflicts with yours should not be included nor yours deleted. Seeing what seems to be the keeper's best argument, there is no argument that will likely change my mind: changing my vote to Strong Delete above. Carlossuarez46 05:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to working with you on improving the article. -- Stbalbach 05:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguing of Stbalbach. Do not merge - the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is already overflooded with promotion garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 00:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguing of Stbalbach isn't a reason to AfD, seeing as how I argued for a Keep. Also, what "seven wonders" list was ever not promotional in origin? -- Stbalbach 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough and I believe that it is encyclopedic despite the discussion to the contrary. I personally do not see anything that is POV but that is just my own POV :) --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst I can't be arsed to look for links it's definitely something I've heard about before and so seems notable to me (please don't turn this into Elvis' Policy however, I'd never live it down.--ElvisThePrince 17:37, 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 Speedied. --humblefool ® 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Moor[edit]

Appears to be hoax article with no basis in fact Scott Davis ^Talk 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Definitely a hoax. What would you think about an alleged 15-years-old guy who played football, sang with The Streets, performed with The Pogues, defeated John Cena in a WWE tournament and is going to appear in the next Rocky movie?!? --Angelo 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax (see also Talk:Josh Moor). Poulsen 23:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Poulsen 23:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Alas, being a hoax is not a reason for it being a speedy. Qwghlm 23:38, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GovBenefits.gov[edit]

Created by user:GovBen who has only done edits relating to this article. Looks like a clear case of WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Also, I suggest, not particularly notable to users outside the US. -- RHaworth 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:COI is not a good rationale for deletion unless the article violates something else, which it does not. And there are many things on Wikipedia that are only of interest regionally, such as the many bands with no international recognition. -Amarkov ^babble 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Amarkov. hateless 00:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL How obvious a self promotion can you get if your username has the same one as the article you make and it's the only one you edit. Delete. Anomo 03:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was self-promotion by itself rationale for deletion? -Amarkov ^babble 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very often. See also WP:VAIN. Although one could ask Can the US government ever be thought vain as an entity? One requires no answer. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is. By the way, WP:VAIN is merged into COI now. -Amarkov ^babble 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it is probably a self-promotion. But the article looks like it is about a notable subject and could be expanded into a "normal" encyclopedic article. The article itself doesn't violate any of the criteria for deletion. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.--Hús ö nd 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearl River Memorial Pub Crawl[edit]

Contested speedy. No assertion of notability (and not notable-sounding on its face) or citation of any sources at all; if it weren't for its claim to be several years old, a fairly clear WP:NFT. Only google hit is several entries on someone's blog ^{[Check Google hits]}. DMacks 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced. --Nehwyn 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've also nominated Dan Hanzus for deletion by AfD. Agent 86 22:22, 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. The original research argument is persuasive. A trivial glance at the list shows that they are overwhelmingly not verifiable by watching the episode, despite assertion to the contrary. "Jonathan tells Clark "you were meant for much more important things than winning football games". Glen Ford's Jonathan Kent, in Superman, says very similar dialogue." That presumably requires watching the episode and another film; same with every other allusion that is to another film or the comics, they rely on original research by synthesis between two primary sources. "Clark is almost always seen wearing combinations of red, yellow and blue" would require watching, well, every episode in which Clark wears one or more of the three primary colours, if not sourced to a secondary rather than primary source. This is why encyclopaedia articles must rely predominantly on secondary sources; this article is clearly reliant on primary sources and not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smallville allusions[edit]

The content of this page is not encylopedic or verifiable as other than opinion. It is definate crystal ball work, as little of the content is documented as other than the editor's observations. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Slavlin 23:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this articles has been up for deletion before, or it was at least discussed before. The article, though probably on the crust isn't encyclopedic, the vast allusions that are constantly made reference to in the show make for some notability. Most shows do not do too much alluding in general, and this show has almost a half dozen references an episode. Most of this is not "crystal ball work" as just about all of the references are to previous things of the Superman history. There are certain elements that needs a source, but most is reference back to the comics or films, and can easily be verified by watching. Bignole 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Smallville episodes (AfD discussion) has been up for deletion. Uncle G 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't sure. I know if you go there the topic was about this page as well. Bignole 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as canonical original research. This relies on interpreting primary sources, rather than simply reporting their content, which is not acceptable per WP:V et al, or per the new WP:ATT proposal. Exegesis must be derived from secondary sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research by definition. Very well done, though, and would be great on a Smallville website... just not on an encyclopaedia. --Nehwyn 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Merge into the episode summaries, combined with Transwiki over to wikicities:c:Smallville. I have a hard time deciding where the OR line is here. Everybody assumes that the "Clark Kent" in Smallville is the same one that's in Superman... but is that citable anywhere? Ditto for any number of lesser references. It seems appropriate to link Smallville characters to their corresponding DC characters, but absent an explicit cite from the writers, it's technically OR to assume that merely because the name is the same and the character is similar, it's the same character. Reductio ad absurdum: If you see a news article saying that Bill Gates bought the Dodgers, can you assume that the article is talking about Bill Gates? After all, if they don't say "founder of Microsoft", they might be talking about some *other* Bill Gates. Where's the line? WP:ATT says "It is legitimate to make ... straightforward logical deductions ...". That would seem to apply to at least some of the material here, and that material seems useful. Perhaps that would reduce this page to the point where the material could be moved into the episode summaries. Jordan Brown 07:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Transwiki if possible. This is interesting, but so far outside of our policies I don't see how this can be salvaged. For the most part this is not only OR (as in: one person sitting in front of the tv writing things down) but also POV (as in: one person interpreting what things mean). ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Verifiable by watching the episode. You can't say painting a big red "S" on his chest doesn't fit "straightforward logical deduction." - Peregrinefisher 23:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How about When Chloe talks to Lana about having sex, she reveals that she lost her virginity to an intern named Jimmy who was "cute, in a bowtie sort of way." This is a broad reference to Jimmy Olsen, who works as a photographer at the Daily Planet. Olsen has worn a bowtie in numerous occasions in comics and the movies? This is unsourced guesswork, pure and simple. ~ trialsanderrors 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them should be removed. A bunch of them were removed a couple of months ago. It may be time for another house cleaning. - Peregrinefisher 05:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Keep, but might require a cleanup. I find some of these very useful since they actually make you think and remember of some things you probably wouldn't notice while watching. SFilip 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) by Herostratus. Kavadi carrier 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armagetron Lovers[edit]

Article is an attempt to contact fans of a game and direct them to a website. The website does not appear to meet WP:WEB. (The game itself does not appear notable per WP:WEB and its article is currently prodded.) This is a recreation of an article that was previously speedied; it was tagged for speedy this time, too, but that tag was removed by the author, who further added: "PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS, UNLESS YOU HAVE GOOD REASON TO (i.e. typos, grammatical errors, etc..)" -- which shows rather a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Probably still speediable, but bringing this to AfD just to be sure. Shimeru 23:57, 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 Delete - Yomangani ^talk 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

This is a redundant disambiguation page. Both examples listed below are included on the main Starbuck disambiguation page. "Starbuck (Battlestar Galactica)" is an unlikely search term. Users already mariginally familiar with either series would use Lieutenant Starbuck, Kara Thrace or a derivative as their search terms and find what they wanted, or be sent to the main Starbuck disambig page. BlueSquadronRaven 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. hateless 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Use the main "Starbuck" disambiguation page. Wavy G 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, likely link term. Kappa 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can certainly understand why one might like this page delted, as it is redundant, but it is important, as if we do delete it, people will just recreate a page for one character or the other as they search. If we redirect, which one should we redirect too? I say keep it as it is, its not doing anybody any harm, and is helping people who may be searching... EnsRedShirt 10:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main disambiguation page for Starbuck; there's no need to keep this page separate. Just take the already-extant two BSG links in the Starbuck disambig page and separate them off to highlight them. If I hadn't been dinged before for altering content under AfD discussion I'd be bold and do it now. Alba 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and due to redundancy. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk^|^Count 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I know 2-item dabs are a no-no, this is a reasonable one. It is conceivable that someone writing an article on either version of BSG, or the actors involved, could simply do their own dab on the fly, leading to possible confusion. 23skidoo 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to ~~Starbucks~~ Starbuck. --Nehwyn 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Starbuck, but not Starbucks like Neh said. That's the coffee place. Anomo 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. =) --Nehwyn 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — 23skidoo states it well. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:47, 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 listed as copyvio. If someone wants to rewrite an original article on him that asserts his notability, they can use the temp subpage. Kavadi carrier 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Esack[edit]

Run of the mill academic. Most of the article appears to be a copyvio from http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/ducis/civilizations/_esack.html and http://www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=134, the latter not appearing to be a reliable source. The rest is pure WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Very Weak This man is by no means a "run of the mill" academic, but the copyright issues are a big problem. And the article is poorly written. Sources? Terrible. POV? Yikes! My preference would be to prune this article alllllll the way down to a stub, because that's all the available source material can justify. I am persuaded that good source material is out there, but someone has to actually go out there and get it before posting the article on Wikipedia. How long will it take? Better still, if someone with good research skills will pledge to work on this article, maybe they can userfy it for some intensive work and then re-post. I would really like to see a good article on this man. Notability is not the only criteria (not that any real evidence of notability has been presented at this time.) Another option is to place this man's name on Requested Articles. OfficeGirl 01:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio, but notable - crz crztalk 02:13, 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 a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Search For the Magic Bunny Ears[edit]

Non-notable webcomic posted by its author. 3 Google hits from two websites; doesn't meet WP:WEB. Fe e zo (Talk) 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 01:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Search for the Magic Bunny Ears is written by Grundo a 12 year old homeschooled boy" - yikes. This is more suitable for Comixpedia. Speedy delete as no assertion of webcomic's notability. Kavadi carrier 02:11, 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.