Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

Purge server cache

Recommended reading: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions















































The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G7. Mangojuicetalk 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article created called "University College of Life Sciences", when this is actually a part of the University of Dundee - called, possibly confusingly, "School of Life Sciences" - website → friedfish 14:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I will put it up for "Speedy Delete" per G7. Rama's arrow 14:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


























































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

The result was Delete - relisting was due to the recent addition of the web sources on which only one persona had commented at the time. Now it is clear there is consensus that even those sources are not enough.--Konst.ableTalk 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttoned down disco[edit]

Unnotable clubnight held in London. It may have been running for several years but isn't revolutionary in any way, nor is it any more famous than a lot of other London nights. Seems to be an advert set up by the promoter perhaps? Karinski 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete per nom. Emeraude 13:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another club night. The entire article is OR and I can't see it ever being properly verified. The closest thing to mainstream media coverage I could find by Google was this. Hardly the basis for an article other than confirming that it exists. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit I entered this article as I felt Buttoned Down Disco was an notable concept in London clubbing, since I do not know of any other invite only, travelling nightclubs (?) However, I do not want it to end up looking like an advert. Perhaps you could help me edit it? The copy is from the site's history page. Also, if you need to see mainstream press, there is a press page. I feel the whole area of Nightclubs could be improved though, I've started a discussion on that here. Ignore the Buttoned Down Disco reference, it was only there as an illustration. Also please feel free to comment on the other pages I added/edited; Infinity Club, The Libertines & Clinton. I'm happy to help with the Nightclub category if needed. RachelTurner 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Hey Rachel, sorry i'm not meaning to sound like a bitch here but aren't you the promoters girlfriend? I think if someone unbiased were to put an entry in then fine, but as it is it's a little dodgy. I agree perhaps nightlife should be bigger, but it should only be clubs that have made a real, lasting contribution. If you check the Pacha page you'll see that it's smaller than the Buttoned Down Disco page! User:Halliwell92
  • Edit Hi Halliwell, Yes, I am and sorry, I really don't want this entry to be dodgy! I was just really surprised the nightclub area wasn't bigger and better structured. I tried to follow the layout for an article, incidentally, there doesn't seem to be an infobox template for clubnights, and it is weird how the other articles are so short(?) I'm totally happy for this particular entry to edited down/deleted if everyone argees. However, I think there still needs to be a distinction between venues and clubnights. As Buttoned Down Disco is not comparable to Pacha, it would be more comparable to Escape from Samsara. I'm totally happy to help with the structuring of this category if needed (regardless of whether this entry is deleted or not!) RachelTurner 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually on further investigation, this could be a 'keep' according to WP:MUSIC, since Buttoned Down Disco has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). i.e. TimeOut, The Times, Metro, Evening Standard and The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelTurner (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2006 October 19
    • Would appreciate references. Thanks. —Encephalon 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V, WP:RS. —Encephalon 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
  • Keep I think that the guardian, standard and time out are pretty reliable sources. Agree that the text needs to be cut and toned down to take out the ad-speak, but this is a unique clubnight with an interesting history, too (see http://www.deadmansboots.co.uk - this story also appeared in time out a while back) Hopsyturvy 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Konst.ableTalk 11:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, per nom. Eusebeus 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't feel this one is notable enough to have its own article -- lucasbfr talk 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before voting to keep, one might reasonably expect the references to be cited in the article, not just shown here.Edison 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Per Edison's comment; references should be verified and incorporated into the article, along with the tone worked out. Afterwards, if it still seems non-notable, it should be brought back here. - CobaltBlueTony 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant review or write-up; just the kind of clubbing chat/info you could find on any club night. Nothing to suggest exception or even notability. And article feels and reads as ad-promo-spam. Marcus22 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability. Likely spam/marketing abuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a nightlife guide, and simply citing event previews/reviews from nightlife guides in Time Out, Evening Standard, Guardian etc. are not acceptable sources for proving encyclopedic notability. The background story for the club (yes I looked through the deadmanboots site or whatever its called) doesn't seem to be extraordinary especially as London is a major nightlife capital. I can find multiple published reviews for the little totally ordinary restaurant around the corner, but this doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — NN, even if it manages to stay kinda neutral, it is probably a placed advert. source it and we'll talk. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Biggest Loser (Australia). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Sarnelli[edit]

Looks totally useless. Also I deleted almost all of the precedent article, it was silly POV stuff Attilios 00:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Biggest Loser (Australia) where it's already mentioned. The subject is non-notable, will not be remembered in a hundred years, and lacks third-party verifiable sources besides ones that say that he won the contest. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know about not-notable... [9] It looks like he bit off too much weight from that show and ended up needing surgery to remove the excess flesh. It may be more notable in the show's context, however. Suggesting a Redirect and Improve Target. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not notable by himself, but worth mentioning in context of a parent article wtfunkymonkey 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. one-minute wonder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — to the show article -- lucasbfr talk 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google News Archives shows news reporters on his win. Nothing seems to have happened since. Redirect may be the best option. [10]. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Reality TV "stars" aren't notable. The fact that he needed surgery doesn't make him notable. Just redirect his name to the show's article; his surgery should be mentioned, in passing, there. EVula 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, game show contestants, even successful ones, are not by default notable. Lankiveil 08:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect, as non-notable contestant --Steve 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- to The Biggest Loser (Australia). - Longhair\talk 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, non-notable b himself. --Roisterer 03:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem there's enough consensus, so I applied the redirect in the page. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Concern troll[edit]

The result of this debate was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit on the fence, but I think it falls on the "delete" side. What we have here is a neologism that has sprung up on blogs and does not seem to have made an impact on the mainstream. All of the references cited in the article that actually speak of a "concern troll" are blog posts. The major newspapers linked in the "examples" section verify the incidents, but do not describe them with the term "concern troll." I also disagree with the merge tag, as we should not include the information until we have more reliable sources (also, the behavior does not seem totally consistent with "trolling" as defined in Internet troll, the suggested target of the merge). Andrew Levine 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, maybe to the examples of Internet Trolls--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 00:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete While the cited events have occured, I dont see anything indicating that this term is used outside of this article. wtfunkymonkey 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Delete. Term lacks wider provenance, and seem prety much covered by the term "troll". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until verified.-- danntm T C 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as suggested at the top of the article. I'd say a straight delete would be fine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate your concern, but you'll always stink and burn. Danny Lilithborne 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A slimmed Google search turns up 10k+ hits[11], which strikes me as something that isn't a recently made-up term. EVula 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Google hits for internet-specific terms are always far out of proportion to their actual use. Recently-made-up terms relating to the internet can rack up five, even six figures in their gross Google hits in a very short time. Andrew Levine 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I realize, which is why it was a weak keep. 10k just strikes me as much more than a fad word would have. This is just my personal opinion. EVula 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If some non-blog or forum references can be found and cited (such as newspapers or tech magazines), and the article rewritten to display verifiable information taken from these third-party sources, then I would support a rewrite and keep. However, in its current form, the article is nothing more than a neologistic (made up term) dictdef (definition of the term) with a list of "examples" where the contributor(s) believe that the neologism applies. If you cannot verify through the use of external, third party sources, delete. -- saberwyn 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with internet troll for now, and I think it may be worth a mention at Daily Kos. There certainly isn't enough material for a good article now, although a few pro-blogs could potentially work as (supplementary) citations of use: James Wolcott, Brendan Nyhan being the strongest, but neither one really offers a good definition either. Even a search of DK indicates usage in the single digits as recently as Spring 2006. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - merge into internet troll per nom. --andrewI20Talk 06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Internet troll, and hopefully make less US-centric - I don't think the whole world is familiar with how US politics work. JIP | Talk 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Internet troll as above. --tgheretford (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to all Merges: Even merged information needs to be reliably sourced. Andrew Levine 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "concern troll" is much more like an astroturfer than typical disruptive Internet troll, so this material is mis-placed in that article. "Concern troll" (coined over at DailyKos, I've heard it said) is getting a lot of play from Internet sites seeing exactly this kind of behavior. I started this article, so obviously I thought it was needed. The sources for the two incidents cited, however, are dead-tree newspapers that meet Wikipedia's standard for encyclopedia quality. betsythedevine 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just found what may be the term's first published usage via Google News. It's a letter to the editor whose author uses Wikipedia's definition to explain what it means. So this article has already performed a public service during its brief existence, please let's keep and improve it. betsythedevine 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete(On further examination, it is covered adequately in Internet troll). False expressions of concern and support accompanying a disastrous suggestion have a long standing in politics. Edison 14:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you recommending the page be moved to False expressions of concern and support, then? Because the concern expressed isn't that the practice isn't real, but rather that the term itself ("concern troll") isn't used by mainstream folks, just your everyday Internet folks. For what it's worth, I'm still neutral on this one. GassyGuy 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Betsythedevine's finding. Also, Troll (Internet) is 48KB long, and is ripe for a few spinouts as it is, so a merge may be counterproductive. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Merge or Delete Not significant enough for own article but might be okay as a merge, but there doesn't seem to be much to reliably support widespread use of this term. If reliable sources cannot be found - then delete. Bwithh 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Internet troll --Steve 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I did find this article interesting and there seems to be a little too much subject-specific information here to be merged into Internet troll. --Marriedtofilm 03:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Internet troll -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge into Internet troll. The term is in frequent use, not only on Daily Kos. Auto movil 16:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete article created for trolling purposes? Neologism. Anomo 09:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez-- WP:FAITH My interest in this topic originates from a talk I gave at Wikimania 2006 that discussed the misuse of Wikipedia (and similar publicly edited sites) by paid advocates who disguise their identities and motivation. I agree that "concern troll" is a new word, one with more than a million Google results this morning--but the word describes something that really happens and that people have a word to describe. I started this article because I thought that by doing so I'd make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. But I'm willing to abide what looks like the consensus here that, until the term breaks out of blog cruft and into mainstream media, it could usefully be a re-direct to one of the examples for Internet troll. betsythedevine 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per betsythedevine and merging to internet troll would add significant content to an already too long article. --Trödel 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is probably right that this does not fit well in internet troll, althoough it is, and should be, mentioned there. Septentrionalis 03:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 lack of verifiability, reliable sources, and unencyclopedic nature of unannotated list of names were the key points brought up. --MCB 05:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jadeja royal family tree[edit]

This article is a family tree of a family with questionable notability. It is a contested prod, and the user who removed the prod template wrote in the edit summary: "deprod structured list of notable people". It is unreferenced, has never been properly wikified and has contained very little context since it was created (it currently has none whatsoever). Khatru2 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Questioned notablity, questioned article, no sources, non-attractive, and in all honesty it is just a list of names of people whom most of us don't know about, However if we can have some strong external links and referances and a cleaner article Keep but for now Delete.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The only relevant hit I find goes back to Wikipedia... -- lucasbfr talk 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A1, A3, A7, or WP:SNOW. No context, very little content, and the family tree (kinda) of a barely notable clan of india. --Daniel Olsen 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want to speedy delete this family tree of a non-notable clan which merely "ruled as kings and princes, dominating much of Kathiawar and Kutch in the present-day Indian state of Gujarat for several centuries" before anyone has a chance to dig out the context from the edit history, or the reference for the current version? Kappa 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, questionable notability, and borders on patent nonsense and indiscriminate collection of information. 129.98.212.67 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The last entry, 168, Jam Raval, was the founder in 1540 of the princely state of Nawanagar, and is mentioned in that article, and is confirmed on a number of web sites, including numismatic. #147 the Ninth Century Jam Lakhaji (Lakho Ghuraro) and his son #148, Jam Unnadji, are discussed, for example, in the history of Kutch at [12]. The liniage is certainly notable. There are notable people along it. It does need work and explication. It would be nice to have proper references, the author indicated that his source was Kutch deshno itihash by Aatmaram Keshavji Dwivedi. Printed from "Nirnay sagar" Mumbai Samvat 1932; shake 1798. With my limited library and not speaking Hindi, I haven't been able to verify its existance. But the book The coinage of Kutch by Richard K Bright (1975), may provide additional verification. I have requested it on interlibrary loan. Bejnar 04:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First of all, and I may be wrong about this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be any sort of genealogical guide. Second of all, the 'tree' isn't really a tree, doesn't even seem to show marriage and the like. Third of all, none of the names offer links to articles or any context whatsoever. The 'article,' if you can call it that, isn't the least bit wikified. No explanation of relevance, no sources. --The Way 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point One. This article is not a genealogical guide. It is primarily a list of rulers, although it does have a genealogical component just as does the list of the rulers of the United Kingdom. Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point Two. This is not a tree, despite the label. One needs to look at what it is, not what one thinks the label suggests it to be. This article needs work and constructive criticism. But its notability should be above challange.
Comment Point Three. This clearly needs work. However, when The Waywrote his comment the article did state its relevance at the beginning, as per Kappa above. That edit was at 04:36, 25 October 2006. Yes the article is not properly linked. It does need work as does most of the history of Kutch. That is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to pitch in and help. !Bejnar 18:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe it needs to separate fact from fiction? It says the family was descended from Brahma. T REXspeak 10:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are at least a couple of ways to look at you comment. We should delete all fiction from the Wikipedia, or legendary ancestors require deletion, or as an anti-religious statement that decent from the creator, Brahma, must be fiction? Regardless, as argument for deletion, it would require deletion of the Japanese imperial family who are decended from the sun god. Rationally the need to separate fact from fiction is not a reason to delete entire articles. It may be a reason to work as an editor on an article. Bejnar 20:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant it should probably be said that mythology says that they are descended from Brahma. The way it looks now is as if it is absolute fact. Legendary ancestors do not require deletion if they are verified as being legendary but if they are passed as legendary then that is confusing to the reader. Even so I doubt that Brahma is considered part of the Jadeja royal family in the same way as Queen Victoria is not considered part of many royal families in Europe except for the British royal family. They both had descendants in many royal families. T REXspeak 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to what Bejnar said, #169 Hardholji appears to have become the first king of Dhrol in around the same era. So this may make some sense if someone with knowledge of the subject bothered to seperate fact and fiction and create a proper article out of this. Tintin (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have moved this article to List of members of the Jadeja royal family to better reflect that it is a list and not a tree. I've also cleaned it up a bit. Some others here have apparently found some sources and additional information about these people, which should be added to the article. I'd say keep an list about a royal family in a part of the world that many Wikipedia editors know little about. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ONUnicorn. Per WP:BIAS, Gujarati royals are as worthy of note as British royals. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do point me to a few articles about British royals which are as terrible as this article. Tintin (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's somewhat easier to research British royals than Gujarati royals, especially for English speakers with internet access. This is one source of systemic bias. It isn't surprising that our English royal articles are better. Still, the subject is notable, the content verifiable, and this text, even if it is poor now, contains some information, and may be helpful to someone who wants to improve it. Not worthy of deletion IMO.- Smerdis of Tlön 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reconsidering my support for deletion... however, there are still significant problems with the article. First of all, it's just a list of names and the little blurb doesn't supply anywhere near enough context. The names certainly ALL need to be accompanied by the years in which that person rules. Also, any names which have articles of their own should link to that person's page. More context, years of leadership and article links... if it had these I'd support keeping it, especially because of Wikipedia's drive to rid itself of systemic bias. --The Way 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it improves drastically. A list of a few names is no encyclopaedia article. Tintin (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can anyone verify this list? Are there any sources saying that Brahma (god) and Atri are members of this family? Ones in English would be most helpful, unless someone could translate them. T REXspeak 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely zero context -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not able to see any Tree. There is only one poorly sourced list with no time span or other details.  Doctor Bruno  02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete all articles which are lists, not trees? Kappa 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note what I have voted for other lists. A list is a list is a list and a tree is a tree is a tree. If you have an article titled list, it should be a list and if you have a article titled tree it should be a tree. Any how the list is poorly sourced  Doctor Bruno 
  • Strong Delete. I wonder those who've voted keep know who Vishnu, Brahma and others mentioned in the list are! utcursch | talk 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is wikipedia based on evidence or prejudice? There are many opinions but looking at the evidence it points to keeping. --Mike 10:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I had a another look back and at one point the list was much better: [13] If you don't like the content why aren't people asking for it to be improved? As far as having an article the Gujarati they seem to have their own language Gujarati_language & literature, I think there is potentially a good article here and when the author is clearly struggling we should be spending more time helping and less time trying to delete it! --Mike 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge I knew there was something odd about this call for delete - I've tracked it back. The article is a link from Jadeja and in the earlier form as [14] it would make a very good addition to that article. I can see no debate there to suggest it was ousted from that page so why are we debating this? --Mike 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No external source or links are provided to verify the article. Nileena joseph 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Reads like an advertisement" is generally not a deletion criterion unless it's blatant, speedyable advertisement. There seem to be good multiple references to establish notability otherwise. - crz crztalk 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eluta.ca[edit]

Reads like an advertisement Piuro 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:WEB. The article doesn't assert notability. --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - Has received a fair bit of national press in Canada, although the article definitely needs to lose the advert feeling. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, because it has referances and it also is somewhat decent. My only problem is I hate it when people join Wikipedia and make one article and the only contribs are to that article. It can come across as spam.--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe this article's external links need to be looked at. They aren't legitimate articles, but merely reprints of the company's press release in major newspapers. WP:WEB specifically excludes "media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site". --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Good point by the last commenter. The only thing that could justify this article is serious press coverage, and Brad Beattie says there wasn't any. The company is too new to be "real" in encyclopedic terms. See WP:COI 129.98.212.67 03:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Press releases don't count as media coverage. EVula 04:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This articles internal links need to be checked for the same reason I nominated this one. Piuro 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Eusebeus 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Advertising Patrick Hurston 13:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spamadcruft for nn corp with no reliably sourced info. Marcus22 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Am original author. Have made edits to address concerns raised by Piuro and EVula. Subject has attracted quite a bit of legitimate press in Canada and is not adequately explained elsewhere. Zephyr9998 23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up with ultra heavy detergent. Barely salvageable Qaanaaq 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I looked at the links, and most of them do merely reprint the company's press releases. However, the cited Toronto Star article looks like legitimate press coverage and I found another one here. It ain't much, but I think there's just enough out there to keep the article. -Kubigula (ave) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, per deletion of Zegunder and clear consensus below. NawlinWiki 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Birds? Thought They Were Leaves...[edit]

Non notable album by a non notable band. T REXspeak 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist-Christian parallels[edit]

"Two identical articles have previously been created and deleted (Click Here) One of the previously deleted articles has exactly the same title but without the underscore thus suggesting someone is recreating articles have already been agreed shouldn't be on Wikipedia!!" An anonymous IP listed this for deletion in another article's deletion subpage. [15] T REXspeak 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, You fail to mention that they were deleted on Wikiquote not Wikipedia. The articles there appeared to be just the quotes with no explanation. Comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism have been made in outside sources other than Wikipedia and are even listed on the article under the "Further reading" section. T REXspeak 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is no real reason to delete this article, and many people have worked long and hard on it. It seems to be a relatively interesting subject for some. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I saw the title, I thought, "oh, boy-- another OR mess". When I saw the article, I thought, "wow- people have worked hard on this." It looks like a well-written article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above especially Dlohceirekim. Great, well researched article. Dina 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dlohceirekim and Ulta-Loser are correct. Someone certainly work to reference and verify this work. The article editors are just gonna have to be careful to keep it maitained.-- danntm T C 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Great article, If this article had more pics and referances I would nominate it for WP:FA and next time dear editor please, please make sure to tell us which Wikiproject it was from Wikiquote AFD's have nothing to do with here in my opinion--†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Very well written and researched article, I'm surprised that it is up for deletion. Please keep in mind that this is an article on comparative religious studies. This article provides historical sources and citations.--Lightwork 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per everything above. --Daniel Olsen 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete Per WP:OR. Piuro 17:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I'll say keep for the same reasons above.--SUIT42 03:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually have a book that compares Jesus/Buddha statements side-by-side not more than three feet from where I'm sitting... EVula 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Total Re-write I'm surprised how low the standards being applied are. First, it has tons of WP:OR, a comment above notwithstanding, and regularly violates WP:NPOV. Who decided, to take an early example, that "cognitive" and "theistic" are antonyms? The article is an extended argument in support of the theory that Christianity derives from Buddhism -- and as with all such arguments, it displays an incredible lack of critical judgement -- Antioch was founded by a king of a line that had diplomatic relations with an Indian king, therefore Buddhism influenced Christianity? Nazarene comes from Nazir? -- and a total disregard for chronology whenever it suits the argument.
Where do we get the source for Jerome saying Buddha (rather than Jesus) was born from the side of a virgin? I seriously doubt any reliable source can be found for this. Have a closer look at the "parallel sayings" table -- first, some of them have little or no similarity and were apparently added just to bulk up the list, second, we are given no information about whether the Buddhist saying are recorded in Theravada or Mahayana sutras, which is necessary information in that Mahayana Buddhism is several hundred years younger than Chistianity. At least one has Buddha and Jesus actually saying opposite things. The article generally plays fast and loose with the account of Jesus. In one place it says Jesus told all his disciples to give up all material possessions, a common misunderstanding of what He told the rich young ruler. But encyclopedias exist in part to correct misunderstandings, not spread them.
FA? Please. A.J.A. 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted to keep. Much is not OR and presents long standing comparative religion scholarship, but some of the statements are undocumented OR, such as you cited. But the libraries of theological schools are full of dusty tomes which could and should be cited vis a vis such questions. Unsupported claims should be fact tagged and then deleted. The WP principle is to edit boldly and footnote everything to reliable and verifiable sources, which does not necessarily favor online sources rather than published work.Edison 15:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's not just some original research -- what is or could be cited is generally presented misleadingly. A genuine comparison would be interesting and encyclopedic, and have virtually nothing in common with the article that exists now. A.J.A. 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy kept- I am one of the contributers to this article and Administrators take note that this is an abuse of the deletion processWP:DP
    WP:DEL
    WP:DELETE

Abuse of deletion process [[16]]

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia;

1)that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research -- There is no original research, all the work is researched with quotes from major scholars and works, links and references are fully listed.

2)its central information is verifiableand it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship.... -- all sayings and quotes are verifiable, all historical information is verifiable

3)XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.

I would like to add that this article is a part of Wikipedian categories of religious comparisons

Wikipedia Category:Religious comparison [[17]] and is perfectly in line with this category.

I would like to thank all the wikipedians who support the keeping of this article. Thank you!--216.254.121.169 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThe similarity of the teachings of Buddha and Jesus has long been noted by scholars. Comparison of religions has a long scholarly history, so the article has a lot of scholarship to draw on. The subject is notable and encyclopedic.That said, the scholarship can be improved. Footnote 5 is very vague as to what it refers to. Footnote 1 is to a website which appears to be a book, but no ISBN is furnished and it is not footnoted as a scholarly book. It is important in documenting 1st century Christianity in Palestine, a subject with few primary sources. The same info is cited to writings by Hypolytus, but clicking the link leads to a disambiguation page, and checking the various pages does not produce backup for the claim made re Terebinthus. This is only skimming the surface of need for improvement. Editors, get busy and make all references to only verifiable and reliable scholarly sources. (Edited to add: I added ISBN info for ref 1, but tthe form could still use a tweak. Please check other books cited and provide full publication info)Edison 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: while it may contain some OR, it clearly is not OR. Could use some cleanup, but how many articles is that not true of? (Even including a few on this list.) Xtifr tälk 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, if this isn't encyclopaedic I don't know what is! --Steve 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't need to look at the article to know that it is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. If the content isn't up to scratch, or it isn't being worked on then OK, but my own opinion is the request to delete is an abuse of process. --Mike 10:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xtifr Qaanaaq 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article does need some work but it is a good topic. --BenWoodruff 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This isn't Wikiquote, so there are different rules for what gets deleted. Religious comparisson is a very widely studied topic, and it is a valid encyclopedic topic.Koweja 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This topic is constantly drawing attention of historians of religions. There are many notable scientific works on subject. For example Rudolf Otto "Mysticism East and West" --Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Keep. 5 days has passed, and due to overwhelming support (which I would like to thank all the support from wikipedians), this article should be speedy kept. --216.254.121.169 14:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article can't be cited as original work as the core of the work is supported by sources: Furthermore, I have added sources and am willing to add more references. I have added references for the parallel sayings and lives table as well as the historical interactions sections.--216.254.121.169 22:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. --MCB 04:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold H. Thompson[edit]

Not notable prisoner and robber with <200 unique google hits. I see no purpose for this article other than to promote his webpage and attract attention to his plight. The page also "borrows' heavily from his webpage, and so is either vanity, copyvio, or of questionable verafiability.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite, or Delete without prejudice(i.e. a better article on the subject might be acceptable). '"Harold Thompson" prisoner' gets 1440 ghits, almost all relevant, and he seems to have some notability among various anarchist and activist sites, so an article on this guy is borderline acceptable, IMO. However, the text of the current article is cribbed wholesale from his website. Copyvio is probably not a problem (these are anarchists!) but verifiability is, so pretty much the whole article would have to be scrapped and rebuilt from better sources... --Aim Here 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Does not seem awfully notable, probably could use a major rewrite James68 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current form, this does not make a case for verifiable notability. Eusebeus 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if and only if verifiable sources are found. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Proven I failed to spot anything in the article that was notable in the case. If as suggested it is referred by others above (good discussion!) then why isn't it in the article - more so, and particularly why isn't it in the first paragraph? What implications are there for other people - if it doesn't even e.g. challenge one single point of law what's it doing here? --Mike 10:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing particularly notable about him being a murderer, a problem prisoner, a jailhouse lawyer, a zine editor, or an anarchist. NawlinWiki 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Chapel[edit]

Non-notable church. A Google search finds an article on the history of the church, but reveals nothing of significance that occured there, or anyone particularly noteable who preached/attended. It's an old church, but that's about all I can find that's unique. Consequentially 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verifiable, and probably a reasonably significant place in its parent community so should probably be covered there. Per WP:LOCAL, it seems to make sense to merge with Cambridge. JYolkowski // talk 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. You'd think I'd have found WP:LOCAL before today. A merge might work -- if we can establish that there is some kind of notability in the local community. Consequentially 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — It seems to me that a lot of Church articles (and High Schools) are in the same case. I would tend to leave it that way. -- lucasbfr talk 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I would love to Keep this article however it is A. without referances and B. comes across as a church member wanting to write an article about their Chapal. --†hε þяínce öf ɒhaямa Talk to Me 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any confirmation of notability or verifiability. 129.98.212.67 03:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No true assertion of notability. If it wasn't for this AfD, I'd have no idea it was an old church, as it doesn't even mention its age. EVula 03:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing proving any notability. Furthermore, what little information is present (it's a stub) talks is a short biographical account of the churches preacher and the names of its staff members. The age, as EVula mentioned, is not to be found in the article. --The Way 05:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above: no assertion of notability, no other evidence of notability thrown up in discussion. It's also a very badly-written article: there is nothing that says directly whether it's in Cambridge, England or Cambridge, Massachussets and the only clue is that it refers to the Grafton Centre, which I seem to recall is a shopping mall in the middle of the city of Cambridge in England. But even with a tidyup, I can't see any reason to believe that it can ever make a legit claim to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without prejudice. If it is an ancient and notable church, maybe one of the scholars who are familiar with it will take the time to write up well referenced claims to notability. There's just not a keepable article there yet.Edison 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if improved.Delete The chapel's history from their website looks like it could help make a worthy article. -- Bpmullins 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed per GRBerry's argument below. Bpmullins 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment According to the history linked to above, this chapel was opened in 1825 - in the UK, most people wouldn't consider this a particularly ancient building. Many of the churches where I live are getting on for 1000 years old! -Ladybirdintheuk 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course that's true, but mere age isn't crucial to notability. You'll certainly not find a thousand-year old Baptist congregation anywhere! They appear to trace their roots back to just after the Restoration - fairly significant in the context of Baptism. Bpmullins 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version The article makes no claim of notability. It looks like we might want an encyclopedic article about the church because of its history, but this is not that article, nor even a help to writing it. The links in this AFD are more of a help, but there is a shaky transition in the second paragraph about John Stittle that I'm not convinced would stand up to a real researcher. So delete this, with no prejudice against a future article about the church that is sourced as described in WP:INDY and WP:FORGET. GRBerry 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it but fix it: Eden is notable for at least a few reasons. 1) Its history, I believe, goes back to the early Particular Baptists in England. 2) It is one of the two or three most popular places of worship amongst students at the University. 3)It was for many years pastored by Roy Clements who became known as one of the premier Evangelical leaders in the UK. There was quite a stir when he came out (or was outed)as a homosexual and resigned his post. 4) Mark Dever, a well known Evangelical /Baptist leader in the US was associate pastor there for a few years.

If those statements can be sourced and attributed, I'd happily change my mind about the deletion. But as it stands now, there's no reference to any of those things in the article. Consequentially 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to write a new article for this entry in the next few days, highlighting more of the history of this church as well as it's important place in contemporary British evangelicalism. (Note: I am not the writer of the current article)

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

The result was delete. Dakota 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Instinct[edit]

Web cartoon with no real claims of notability. No reliable, independent sources, failing WP:V, WP:RS. Also fails relevant guideline of WP:WEB. Delete as such. Wickethewok 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're probably right. ergot 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun reporting[edit]

This term appears to violate WP:NEO and WP:NOR. I originally nominated this for a prod back on Aug 29 because the only usage of this phrase in relation to spam that showed up on Google was this wikipedia. The prod was contested with a claim that this term was used mostly in blogs. On Aug 30, suddenly five mentions of this phrase appeared on various blogs via google[19], all from "different" people. Since then, there have been zero *new* usages of this phrase. Of the five usages, all of the usages appear to be somewhat contrived and several are of the form "Is this a case of shotgun reporting?" where others answered "no". None of these five usages of the phrase actually define what it means, let alone give a definition that matches what is in the article. Wrs1864 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense/hoax by Lucky 6.9

Pm records[edit]

Hoax or joke: google search for "Stewie and Mike" returns no relevant results, google search for "PM Records" returns a "P.M. Records" jazz label, JT Money never made an album called "Gay Hill", and Mitt Romney is the governor of Massachusettes. Prodded and de-prodded. Natalie 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damned hoaxes, anyway. Making this go away right now. - Lucky 6.9 01:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Natalie 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Douglas (librarian)[edit]

Vanity; non-notable; apparently set up to fulfill a violation of WP:POINT, here.

  • Delete per above. --John Hubbard 01:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the reasoning? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as I enjoy his online writings, he's really not a notable figure. It would be nice if this page had been semi-protected as opposed to fully... GassyGuy 03:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That weblink from the nominator says it all. 129.98.212.67 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as above, and possible speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I admit to being amused. But, though the initial page was obviously a prank, he does turn out to be a published author with quite a few published articles. So, if he really wants a entry, he does seem to have some evidence to be evaluated in favor of it. Granted, it's not strong, but it's nonzero -- Seth Finkelstein 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:POINT violation, as shown in the nominator's link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WP:Sandbox!  :) Xtifr tälk 23:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Douglas makes it clear that he wants other to vandalize the page. Delete and protect it from recreation. Koweja 23:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is hilarious, but wrong. - Lex 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough people are certainly interested in the entry...I say put a semi-protection on it, and keep it, or redirect it to an entry on McSweeney's Internet Tendencies.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_software_development_kits[edit]

What is the point of having this page? There's no realistic way to list every single SDK in existence, nor is there any point to doing so. How do you lay it out? By license? By company? By domain? How big must something be to qualify for the list (ie can my pet graphics engine be arbitrarily added to the list)? Even if all of those questions were satisfactorily answered, there would be no advantage to having such a page -- at the very least, it would be prohibitively large. As described in What Wikipedia Is Not, "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." I don't see any redeeming value to simply listing all the SDKs. The ones that are worth talking about (for example, the Open Dynamics Engine) can be given their own pages, and SDKs can be a category instead. Promit 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ] 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R. Mennenga, Evo Terra[edit]

"Award-winning" "podcaster, writer, and businesman" -- except the two books he's authored are put out by vanity presses, the award isn't specified, the article on the podcast survived a vaguely decided "no consensus" AFD, and the article on the company he takes credit for co-founding WAS nuked at an AFD. A couple of hundred Google hits for "Michael R. Mennenga" -- with the second from the top being this article, always a bad sign. Also add his co-podcaster, Evo Terra. Calton | Talk 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi won the Podcast & New Media People's Choice Award in 2005. - --Joelrees 05:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo68 (talk • contribs) 11:34, October 25, 2006
  • Keep this guys are actually very notable as podcasters go - they run one of the larger podcasting 'families' (Farpoint media), they've won the people's choice award, as Joelrees pointed out, they recently ran the podcasting track at Dragon*Con, and their own podcasts are heavily subscribed. I'm pretty sure Slice of Sci Fi and Wingin' it are both in the podcast pickle hall of fame, but I can't check right now because the site appears to be down. -- Vary | Talk 15:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and note that the 'no consensus' afd on Slice of Sci Fi was nearly a year ago, and both of the delete votes appear to have been because the editors thought podcasting was too new to be in Wikipedia. If these articles had been started then, deleting them may have been appropriate, but they've gained a lot of notability in the past year. And yes, I'm a fan, but I think I've supported my position well enough for that to be overlooked. -- Vary | Talk 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one I've edited these before (nominating their Farpoint podcast company for AFD & using prod on other linked articles). The sources for Terra include co-authorship of a (non-vanity) book and media coverage of the "podiobook" startup - so I don't see the point in deleting him. But I don't see any sources for Mennenga's own notability that would meet WP:V. Even though that might be a generic problem for podcasting guys, it's the current policy. Mereda 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I grow continually more and more dissapointed with the militant hatred that Wikipedia has for podcasting. I agreed with the vote sometime back to scrap the article for Farpoint Media as company itself is not as notable as the podcasters and podcasts produced under its auspices. However, Michael and Evo are well known persons to a large audience, especially Michael. He is either the host or engineer for a number of podcasts and, as was noted, engineered the podcast track for this year's DragonCon. I don't see anything in the article that isn't verifiable. The article could stand some expanding, but Mennenga is well known to enough people to warrant his inclusion here. As I look at User:Uncle G/On notability, he notes that artists who have a top 10 song and authors who have a widely read book are automatically notable enough for inclusion, even if there aren't many independent articles about them. I would argue that podcasters like Michael and Evo who have a large listening audience to their shows should be considered in that same vein.Ultimate ed 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They seem notable enough, especially Evo who co-authored one of the For Dummies books. - Lex 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. I even own one of Terra's books. --Marriedtofilm 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. I own Terra's book as well. ----[[User:Terry976|Terry976] 07:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Keep Highly notable. Dr.khan 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - good work, people. DS 04:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Road[edit]

Article appears to be patent nonsense. A Google search for "'Napier Road' Pakistan produces only 792 results. This article is the first result, and the only article to even remotely mention prostition. That would make it unverifiable information, or possibly a hoax. Consequentially 02:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Speedy Delete Patrick Hurston 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. Fine tuning the search gets a few hits of the place being mentioned as a red light district. It exists and has some trivial mentions. I'll change my decision to keep if someone finds a 2nd hand source that covers the area in more detail than just a mention. —Mitaphane talk 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing decision to keep after reading some sources provided by Capitalistroadster. Admin should speedy close this since nom has been withdrawn. —Mitaphane talk 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very badly written, but Napier Road is apparently Karachi's principal red light district and a reference is provided in List of red-light districts. The main red light district in a major city is notable. -- Necrothesp 01:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found a source for its reputation for prostitution. [20] Britannica lists it as a notable road in its article on Karachi according to Google News Archive. [21]. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I stand corrected. The PFD from above crashed my browser, but I got enough of it to pick up what you're laying down. I'll rescind my nomination, and tag the article appropriately. Consequentially 03:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vombato mail drive[edit]

Much less notable than the related Xmailharddrive (also up for deletion). 971 ghits, and reads like an ad. Delete. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; nonnotable. This will be hard to argue against. 129.98.212.67 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm tempted to call for speedy deletion under G11, but I wouldn't call this blatant advertising. *shrug* Either way, it doesn't belong here. EVula 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent sources to satisfy either WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE.-- danntm T C 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew arvedon[edit]

Non-notable writer. Only claim of notability is his book The Experiment which was published by vanity press PublishAmerica. "Andrew arvedon" "the experiment" produces only six Google hits, and his book does not even have an amazon.com SalesRank. PROD tag was removed without explanation by the article's creator. Elmer Clark 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • apparently elmer clark has nothing better to do then ruin peoples lives. Elmer, you say that Publish America is a vanity press, but think again buddy boy your wrong. Publish America buys books from the authors and pays them royalites. Have you written anything that has gotten published? I'd love to read it. If not, back away, and stop trying to ruin a perfectly good author's chance of being noticed. The article I wrote was for Mr. Arvedon to have a page where people who don't know who he is could know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereader07 (talk • contribs) User:Thereader07 also created the page under discussion.
    • Comment If having Wikipedia articles deleted is sufficient to ruin your life, I'd posit that you have bigger problems than whether or not Publish America is a vanity press. Danny Lilithborne 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not enough evidence that this author satisfies the guidelines of WP:BIO or that his book satisfies the proposed guidelines of WP:BK. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[after edit conflict]I am quite sorry (and shocked) if the deletion of this article constitutes ruining your life. Regarding PublishAmerica, take a look at the comment I left on your user pageUser talk:71.127.7.86, which I assume is you not logged in, and the company's article itself. At any rate, regardless of publisher, the fact still stands that this book is not notable by the critera at WP:BOOK. I encourage you to keep working to get your book read, but Wikipedia is not a publicity tool, it is only for subjects that have already achieved a degree of notability. -Elmer Clark 03:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without even knowing it, Thereader07 has made the argument for deletion. "...stop trying to ruin a perfectly good author's chance of being noticed." WP is not a place for unknowns to become known. The guidelines on notability are pretty clear.Montco 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Not even close to satisfying WP:BIO. Natalie 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A google of the publishing company brings up an interesting article about other's past run-ins with the publisher. From the Washington Post [22] --Skywolf 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Skywolf. Danny Lilithborne 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thereader07. EVula 04:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PublishAmerica IS a vanity press, period/full-stop. User:Thereader07 needs to read this article for a vivid demonstration. --Calton | Talk 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. James68 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and suggest that we add to the basic notability guidelines something along the lines of "the more you want to have a Wikipedia article, the less likely it is that you deserve one!" Xtifr tälk 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Skywolf, et al.--WaltCip 13:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayim Greenberg[edit]

Nn-bio. 628 Ghits? Delete. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Ghits are not the best way to measure the notability of someone who died in 1953. Could someone who reads Hebrew take a look at the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia to see if it would be worthwhile to add the information in the Hebrew article to the English article? A bibliography listed under "External links" says: "Hayim Greenberg was one of the leading Labor Zionist thinkers of his day. His writings on Marxism, Zionism, and Judaism, widely influenced and in part formed the political ideology of Labor Zionism in Europe and America." http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/english/subcultures/zionism/bibliography.html --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Wikis in other languages appear to have been deleted. --Wafulz 04:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uh, if he was deleted from the Hebrew wiki, how could be notable enough for the English one? I can't actually read the Hebrew page you get to, but the link is the same in the very first version of this article, meaning that, at one time, it was most likely a real article. The "what links here" page does show a link[23], but I can't tell if that backs up the claim that it existed or not... EVula 04:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Neutral I'm withdrawing my vote, as it appears that other editors have found good evidence, but I can't bring myself to vote "Keep" without checking the sources, which I don't have the time for right now. EVula 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be that it was deleted as a copyvio. Just a possibility, though. -- Visviva 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I examined some of the ghits that were out there because I agree with Truthbringer's point that the number of them for someone who died that long ago could be misleading. After sifting through a number of articles found and other references in the first 10 pages I've concluded that he seems to be rather notableand meets the WP:BIO guidelines. The article certainly needs expanding and this is not an area of particular interest for me, though I may consider doing it if it seems like the article will be deleted otherwise. --The Way 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to be notable. He appears in American National Biography Edited by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, vol. 9, pp. 517-518; and in Obituaries on File Compiled by Felice Levy. New York: Facts on File, 1979. Marie Syrkin wrote a book about him entitled Hayim Greenberg published in 1977 by the Youth and Education Department, Jewish National Fund, New York City. The Information Dept., Dept. for Education and Culture in the Diaspora published a book in 1954 In memoriam Hayim Greenberg 76 pages. The article definitely needs expanding. I wonder why the Hebrew article was deleted. Bejnar 06:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bejnar. Beit Or 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GHits are also not the best measure for someone whose name was primarily spelled in Yiddish or Hebrew or Russian but certainly not English. This nomination is silly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.
comment, it was not deleted from the hebrew - it never exsisted. Jon513 12:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bejnar. I believe the annotated bibliography alone is sufficient for WP:Notability, WP:V, and WP:BIO. --Shirahadasha 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP He was an important Zionist figure in America. --Jayrav 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News Archive [24] establishes him as a notable Zionist intellectual as do the sources in the other opinions above. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a distinctly notable Zionist author and theorist. This is an article that deserves attention and expansion, not deletion. Thanks again TruthbringerToronto for your research. Alansohn 03:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve the article tells me almost nothing except where to go and look for information. If it even started with saying why this person was notable, perhaps it wouldn't be nonimated. --Mike 10:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete... Author blanked etc. Tawker 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetWhoring[edit]

Contested ProD. Non-notable neologism. 29 unique ghits [25]. WP:NOT a dictionary. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO.--Húsönd 03:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments?
    I deleted the article Netwhoring already.
    "if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:NetWhoring"
    That's funny, because you never raised any issues on Talk:Netwhoring at all. You put crap on my homepage instead.
    Next time you want to delete an article, raise you objections on the talk page of the page in dispute. Do not address the author personally. Also, it may help if you actually "discuss" your objections, and "read" the content to see if the issue is the content of the article or the name of the article, and if so, what constructive feedback, if any, you may have to share.
    Delete this section after reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DougHolton (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DougHolton blanked this discussion page and left the above message, he also blanked the article. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD G7. The "crap" I added to DougHolton's "user page" were the {{prodwarning}} and {{afdwarning}} templates. I added them to his talk page. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neasg[edit]

Non-noteable association of airsoft enthusiasts. The article was tagged for importance on 1 August 2006, but has remained nearly static since then. A Google search provides 4,670 results with the organization's official site and Wikipedia at top. The remainder of hits are comprised of image hosting sites, blogs, and airsoft forums. Lack of third-party references also make it unverifiable. Consequentially 03:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can only get about 3,100 Google hits[26]. Like Consequentially said, no references are pretty much the nail in the coffin. EVula 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niles McKinley Red Dragon Football Team[edit]

Non-notable high school football team. Apparently they won a lot of games in the early 1960s but no indication as to if that's a record of some sort. They were also in a conference (at one time, apparently not currently) that had some of the oldest football teams in it, but notability doesn't come from being in a league with other teams who might be notable. Metros232 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to assert notability. Only results by search engines are Wikipedia's.--Húsönd 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would there be any merit in merging and redirecting this article to the related high school. By merge and redirect, I mean mentioning the team's existence and one or two lines of externally, third-party verified information. Falining that, delete. -- saberwyn 04:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Niles McKinley High School. The team itself is completely non-notable. EVula 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The team fails to assert notability so its a delete Jeffklib 10:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the school article, otherwise delete. Hut 8.5 15:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loriga[edit]

  • Delete. Uncategorized for a while now, and completely incomprehensible. --SonicChao 03:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't the same as when I voted for it, keeping the current stub version is fine. --SonicChao 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the...? Bad article, and may be a copyvio,[27] though I don't know which came first. EVula 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite per Marriedtofilm. Thanks for providing that link; I hadn't seen it before. EVula 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a copywright violation, may possibly be non-notable. The (very, very odd) article thingy attached (which is what appears to be the cw violation) seems to be a REALLY bad translation from a foreign language, presumably Portuguese. Essentially incomprehensible, in fact. Unless that mess is removed and viable sources are found and the article is wikified, it's garbage.
Keep, but Rewrite per Marriedtofilm. If it is a real town it deserves an article, but what is currently there needs to be totally removed and rewritten; anyone care to do so and put in a bit of basic info? --The Way 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree that it's currently an awful article. But two very important things - 1. It's a real town in Portugal [28] with over 1,000 people and per WP:AFDP, "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." Just by their existence towns are inherently notable. 2. Portuguese Wikipedia has an extensive article on Loriga [29]. Perhaps some translation is needed for us English speakers. As for its current state, now I'd erase all contents, write a stub and let it grow - but definitely worth an article. --Marriedtofilm 05:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mtf is quite right: cities and towns merit inclusion. Eusebeus 13:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read it and thought of English As She Is Spoke. But a town is a town. It could be added to a list of articles needing improvement. Edison
  • Keep. A real town, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recreated the stub from scratch. The oddly translated version is in the article's history for future reference. This new version is no masterpiece, but at least it's readable! --Marriedtofilm 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Fantastic job! I've done a few minor tweaks (and removed {{Uncategorized}}), but aside from that, you and you alone made this a worthwhile article. Good job! EVula 03:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! Someone has already done some further tweaking that I don't really agree with. But as the purpose was to make the article simply legible and have no reason for an AfD, I won't be going to revert battle. --Marriedtofilm 15:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone came along and formatted it a bit better, but I opted to just remove it entirely; its already stated (in my opinion, much better) elsewhere in the article. EVula 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Andre (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angel the Cat[edit]

Appears to be fan-fiction passed off as a character in the Sonic the Hedgehog universe. I have absolutely no knowledge of Sonic beyond the morphogen so I defer to more expert editors. Samir धर्म 03:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — The page's author has been tagged for blatant vandalism, as have the only ones to disagree that this is fan-fiction passed off character in the Sonic the Hedgehog. It seems to be one user using sock puppets ( User:Fostermother4u User:Liki3422 and User:67.181.116.68 ). This character does not exist in any comic, video game, or cartoon, however the page states that the character appears in all three.D1Puck1T 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no relevant google hit. I assume this is made up -- lucasbfr talk 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deletion - A fake character created by a known vandal. BlazeHedgehog 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ess tee you pee aye dee. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; there was another one like this a little while back. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually tried to search for character on webcrawler, found one fanart image that had nothing to do with character described in article.--Vercalos 07:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh, this is... the same guy as the jerk who vandalized Princess Sally's page!?! I'd recommend deleting it, and any other stuff this ^*%*%&*%^ makes! --Luigifan 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're getting awfully upset over a fictional character. Danny Lilithborne 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You should have seen the crap he was putting out. Trying to make us think he was an abused kid having a nightmare. What a load of poppycrock. The guy doesn't desrve to own a computer. --Luigifan 02:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ] 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked vehicle[edit]

Delete. This article is just a dictionary definition which contains no references or explanation of notability. I don't believe this article could be expanded. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by House Centipede (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, and Expand I have to disagree with the nominator; I know absolutely nothing about vehicles, but a quick google search shows that this is a valid and large category of vehicles. It seems valid and notable enough, could be expanded by some mechanical discussion of how they differ from regular vehicles. Discussion of fuel types, advantages and disadvantages and so on. --The Way 05:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Certainly this could become a useful and fact-filled article if a few editors paid some attention to it. It's not like there aren't any tracked vehicles, or a lack of tracked vehicles in history. Ever heard of tanks? How about bulldozers or snowcats? And that's just off of the top of my head. Robovski 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (and expand). This nomination was made by a vandal who is now blocked. --Marriedtofilm 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider Merge I remember spotting this article: Emergency warning system for vehicles from the links it appeared to be a genuine article but written so as to be very difficult to understand. Perhaps the author might be able to merge the two? --Mike 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge. Vegaswikian 02:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicoot Energon[edit]

Contested ProD. Non-notable fan game. Fails WP:SOFT. Fancruft. Made up in school one day. 3 ghits [30]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete-Fan-made games aren't worthy of an article.--SUIT42 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-Fan Made games are just as much games as officially published ones. Besides, it is made fully clear that the game exists, and was not made up in school one day. Is a download link not considered proof that a game exists in the world and is fully playable? Jumpbutton 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User's only edits are to the article Crash Bandicoot Energon, this AfD, and to his own userspace. JIP | Talk 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Judging by the ghits, not even a popular fan-made game. Maxamegalon2000 04:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an official game, though.--SUIT42 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are situations where fan-made games can be notable, such as Super Mario: Blue Twilight DX. Considering the number of fan-made games in existence, however, the notable ones certainly are the exception. Maybe Category:Fanmade computer game remakes and sequels could use some cleaning. --Maxamegalon2000 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exactly does that matter at all? Official or not, it's still a playable, existing game. Jumpbutton 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Criteria_for_products_and_services before continuing a discussion here. --Maxamegalon2000 04:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, that is exactly my problem. That is the opinion of some people, but not all people. What is "notable" to others is not to another set of people. How this is possibly fair to all articles is beyond me, but seeing as this is going to be deleted anyways, I won't bother fighting for it. Jumpbutton 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can still apply WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a directory listing of games (let alone fangames), and once you take out the unreliable sources and information (a forum page is the only reference), that's exactly what's left. ColourBurst 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of which are irrelevant to this discussion, I'm sorry to say. EVula 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Xezbeth 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horus Temple[edit]

Self-promotion, possible conflict of interest Justin Eiler 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional Comment The article reads like a press release, providing little more than a shill for rhe temple and information (regarding the history of the Horus Temple) that is largely redundant to other articles. It should also be noted that the company is a for profit company, according to their website: this seems to be a violation of WP:SPAM Justin Eiler 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Google Test] turns up only 156 hits, and many seem to have nothing to do with this article. I question notability. --Kathryn NicDhàna 06:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harvest the references for articles on the Golden Dawn and delete:
    • This is an ad, and a violation of WP:SPAM.
    • There is little in here that isn't already covered in the articles on the Golden Dawn.
    • This is wildly POV with little hope of cleanup that doesn't remove what little non-redundant content there is.
    • No assertion of notability.
  • Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. Alba 13:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -999 (Talk) 14:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates the spam policy: the article promotes Horus Temple ev; also written in poor format (e.g. all headings written in capitals). --Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Wednesday, 25/Oct/2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep after cleanup. Yes, parts of this do read like advertising. On the other hand, it does seem to offer references to verify its claims. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and its offshoots played a fairly pivotal role in occultism in the English speaking world, and the apparently successful transplant of a variant on this important tradition in New Zealand strikes me as fairly noteworthy. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Change to stub I looked at the web site, there has been one seminar for four days, their Yahoo newsgroup had only two postings last month (which may not reflect membership). The article fails to tell me anything I want to know about the group and everything I don't. Wipe the contents, leave a message saying "you've got to prove this is a worthwhile article" and delete in a few weeks if it does not improve! It needs to say where, when, why, what it is related to, etc. --Mike 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm voting again because I'm in two minds - the lack of any proof of membership or notoriety probably makes it impossible to create any article under the name --Mike 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only way to be sure. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or follow Mike's first advice. I respect Smedis' opinion but I believe we should keep two issues separate: I agree we should keep the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article but this here is an entirely different matter. It is inherently promotional, borderline incoherent and as Mike put it gives all the information we don't want. Also, as far as I can tell from the wildly obfuscated narrative the temple was founded fairly recently and three out of those five references probably predate it. One of the remaining two is co-authored by Pat Zalewki so it's got to be discounted as unreliable. All in all, I'd say the references are of very very dubious quality and I consider most of the current content unverified and possibly unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nice cleanup work by User:etschreiber. NawlinWiki 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse_Ball[edit]

This entry reads as though it were likely written by the author himself. There are no citations for any of the information in the entry, the biggest reference I can find (Richard Howard) appears to be his former professor at grad school (hardly an unbiased/objective opinion), he's only been nominally published (two books do not a successful writer make), most of his bibliography contains books that have never been published or even released, and most of the entry reads as though it were a PR package for Ball. My opinion is that the writer maintains this page himself (it even contains information about his current roommate!), he's not particularly well-known among literary circles (I can't find any readings he has done in the last few years or any connection to a literary scene not connected to his former professor Richard Howard -- for instance, Howard used to be the editor at The Paris Review, where several of Ball's poems have been published), and it simply doesn't have enough authors working on it to be a pertinent Wikipedia entry.

  • Delete Vanity page James68 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you might like to consider the information which is in this article too. No vote yet from me, but I'm inclined to think he ain't notable - yet. NPOV articles, and is so personal that I doubt if much of the info can be verified. The review posted seems a bit local. The photo on the page was put up by someone who said it was "given to me by Jesse Ball himself requesting that it be put on his webpage". Ohconfucius 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote a large portion of this wikipedia page. I am a friend and fan of Mr. Ball's. I believe that the comments made in this deletion discussion are valid and I spent a large amount of time today fixing up the page as per the suggestions made here. I removed the personal information, provided more details as to Mr. Ball's international publications, added citations, added external references and a list of readings/performances. I believe the website is now a factual account of Mr. Ball's career. He is a young highly successful poet. As was mentioned on the March Book deletion page, you cannot expect the Google Test to be a good measure of the notability of a poet. Poetry is a small field but that does not mean it is not worthy of coverage by the Wikipedia and its community. Mr. Ball has been published in the United States by Grove and Vintage; and internationally by Nyhil and Feltrinelli. He has been reviewed by the Boston review and Publishers weekly. Furthermore, Mr. Ball's work was selected for Best American Poetry, 2006. It is clear that he is an important young poet and novelist. Ethan L. Schreiber 21:44, 29 October 2006 (EDT)
  • Comment I also want to note that someone asked to delete this page in the past as well and there was a community discussion on its worthiness. You can see here that people overwelmingly voted to keep the page then. Doesn't Wikipedia have any rules about double jeopardy? :) Ethan L. Schreiber 22:18, 29 October 2006 (EDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lona Kay[edit]

Non-notable author. Her one claim of notability is her book Dialogue with a Demon, published by vanity press Vantage Press. Her name does not occur outside Wikipedia along with the book and it has no amazon.com SalesRank. -Elmer Clark 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that internet references are limited to WP mirror sites. nn author. Montco 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn author per WP:BIO. --andrewI20Talk 06:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable selfpublished author. NawlinWiki 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most convincing accounts of demonic harrassment recorded. Since the book is from the 1970's Google is not going to have a lot of hits for it but I did find a copy through inter-library loan. Very interesting book and notable for what it is about and for what it reveals. The fact that it is no longer sold and not well known does not take away from it's interest, value or encyclopedic worth. Quite amazing book, one of a handful of occult books that reaches far above all the crap that is published by bigger publishing companies even. Dwain 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 07:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Tree[edit]

Almost an A1 speedy, but I wouldn't be surprised if this "tree" were documented as a piece of folklore. Let's give it 5 days on AfD for someone to come up with sources, keeping in mind a possible merger to ugliness. Delete unless referenced in an encyclopedic manner. GTBacchus(talk) 04:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a catagory for Fictional Trees but the Ugly Tree does not make the cut? --Milliamp 07:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, ridiculous. The term itself is insignificant, and there is no content besides definitional explanation of meaning/common usage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GassyGuy 08:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense Patrick Hurston 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Made up nonsense. The only thing in the article that deserves mention somewhere is the ugly stick. DCEdwards1966 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. A well sourced version in encylopedic tone shouldn't be too difficult for those with a little extra time on their hands. In its current state its completely unencyclopedic and any new version would basically require scrapping this one. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very old phrase that needs explanation in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Mr Spunky Toffee 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense and article fell out of such a tree. Anomo 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Save it to BJAON ? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect as suggested below. NawlinWiki 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Gobbo[edit]

Non-noteable columnist for an online publication. A Google search yeilds 228 results, only six of which relate to the topic of the article. The rest appears to be Warhammer 40000 cruft and forum posts. Consequentially 04:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Shriner[edit]

Non-notable conspiracy theorist. The page makes several claims to notability, but I can't say I really buy any of them. Most prominent is her website www.sherryshriner.com, but it only has an Alexa ranking of 685,865. She had a radio program on Reality Radio Network, but it has no Wikipedia article and their website doesn't exactly impress me -- as far as I can tell it's just some Internet radio station of no great significance. Lastly, she has two books published, but they were published by vanity press iUniverse and have amazon.com SalesRanks of 943,181 and 374,270. Aside from these "notability claims" there is simply biographical information and a summary of her theories. -Elmer Clark 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha, her "theories" are amusing, but she doesn't appear to be notable (despite the claims). Delete TJ Spyke 04:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear fail of WP:BIO just being crazy doesn't make you notable. --Daniel Olsen 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sandstein 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I were not on Wikipedia, I might call her a kook. As I am on Wikipedia, I'll just note that she fails WP:BIO Justin Eiler 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • move. belongs here as a bad joke. Ohconfucius 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The looniness of her theories does not make her NN, and although it's hard to tell because she has so many websites, she seems to have a respectable number of Ghits. --Groggy Dice 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skewed Democracy[edit]

Reads like a gag or a non-notable idea. Nothing on a first check at Google. Article's author seems uninterested in providing any sort of verification. David Oberst 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per my nomination. - David Oberst 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a term made up in one school day. All the ghits are talking about skewed-as-in-messed-up democracies, and not the process of looking at a democracy sideways and holding a raffle for party leader as this article appears to suggest. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The drama teacher came up with that one. Qaanaaq 12:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid entry, correct theroey, definitley worth keeping. - [[User|Hhwha1}}10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- original research. Glendoremus 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testy[edit]

Article is simply a definition--perhaps merge with Wiktionary, more likely just delete. -Theaterfreak64 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shart[edit]

The article was apparently previously AfDed, but the prior AfD appears to be for a totally different context. This current article is about a Bollywood film with no assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently NeutralKeep May be non-notable and certainly is a stub, but I did a search and it looks like it very well could be a well-known Bollywood, at least in India (which, keep in mind, has a population 3 times that of the US). Given Wikipedia's drive to remove systemic bias it's important not to delete foreign movies and such too hastily. If anyone knows more about Bollywood movies they should comment. --The Way 06:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 1969 movie. The IMDB is [31]. The lead actor and actress are accomplished Bollywood stars. There were two other movies with the same title Shart (1953) and Shart (1986). Bejnar 06:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Positively minded because it is Bollywood after all, a bit dubious because I do not know how known this film is in India. It did not google too well, but that does not mean much, because of the different alphabet. There seem to be a lot of these films called "Shart". "Shart: the Challenge" (2004) seems better known than the 1969 one. Disambiguation page? --Pan Gerwazy 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bollywood is a high output genre, and even given the concern about removing systemic biases, most Bollywood films should be considered to be non-notable given that high output. --Nlu (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would accept another reasoning for deletion, but not because "Bollywood is a high output genre", given the terms of WP:NOTFILM. The notability criteria of film does not talk about output of the industry it's involved in; it only cares about whether "The film has been theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters." If this film has, then it passes. If not, it fails. ColourBurst 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Research shows this is a common term. The user Nlu has been very quick to delete several articles, and has harrassed authors of such pages. .... added at 19:27, 25 October 2006 by 69.138.37.99
    • If you have a beef with the person who nominated the article for AfD, this isn't the place to air it. -- Hoary 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated, in no way prejudicing the fate of a future article on the same movie in which one or more editors bother to say something substantive and verifiable about the movie, let alone the fate of an article with the same title that's about a different subject. -- Hoary 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bollywood movie. Since it's notable, it should stay. Here's a review, for instance. --A. B. 06:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was started (or at least the film version of it) was started by Commander Keane -- I've left him a courtesy message about the AfD. --A. B. 06:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put some more links demonstrating notability on the article's talk page. If you don't like the word "Shart", the bad news is that there are two movies with that name and probably now two articles needed. --A. B. 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just hope there's not a sequel or a series... --A. B. 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That review (which pans it, BTW ... "a weak fare in all respects") is about an entirely different film ... Shart: The Challenge (2004). —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (negative) - IMDb lists 4 Bollywood films named "Shart"[32] from 1954, 1969, 1986, and 2004 ... except for the 2004 film, each has received less than 10 votes, BTW, which certainly begs the question of "notability" ... OTOH, given the size of India, it was probably "theatrically released nationwide in a country, or into 200 or more commercial theaters." If this article is retained, then it should list the other three films as well, like a disambiguation page. (Please, do not create three new pages!) See the article's discussion page for the list with IMDb links. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC) —updated 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the above comment; the IMDB is an English website largely focuses on English films; foreign films tend to get far less attention on it and it is not a valid way of gauging how important a particular foreign film is. Especially given how old the film is, it's not surprising that the film only got a few votes on IMDB; this has no indication as to the notability of the film. Given the size of India, with a population of a billion, it's highly likely that this film meets Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, given, as I noted above, Wikipedia's desire to counter systemic bias I think we should act in good faith and keep the article, though it certainly could be expanded. --The Way 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bollywood flicks. Fight Amero-centricness, or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many Bollywood flicks do you think should have Wikipedia articles? --Nlu (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many? As many as are notable in India, another English-speaking nation with many Wikipedia readers. If that means 100 or 1000, so be it. There's always more room for notable articles. A film that's notable in India is as deserving of an article as a film notable in the U.S. --A. B. 04:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That presupposes that it's notable in India, which hasn't been shown. --Nlu (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So far, it has not been established that this film is notable in India or anywhere else ... there are four movies with this name, and we don't even know what "shart" means in English. Look at the Filmography sections in articles for Bollywood actors (like Sanjay Khan or Mumtaz), and the links go to definitions of Hindi, Sanskrit, or Urdu words ... not articles on the films. Articles for award winning films like Khilona and Ghulam establish their notability, but ones like Baaghi and Gardish should be deleted per WP:NOTFILM. There are currently 536 Bollywood films in Category:Indian film stubs, and most of them have a lot more information about them than just "a 1969 film by <redlink> starring <unknown-outside-of-India>". —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many comments above, and to avoid systemic biases. Yamaguchi先生 06:58, 1 November 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll hit SSTM too, as mentioned below. —Cryptic 11:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R-3 SSTM[edit]

Non notable (doesn't appear anywhere in google), seems technically implausible (possibly a hoax). Unreferenced (violates WP:V)- constitutes WP:OR.WolfKeeper 15:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that 194.78.218.68 has voted more than once in this discussion. --Brad Beattie (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • speedy delete, blatant nonsense. Could someone block the IP before he spams again? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also delete SSTM, created by the same person and just pointing people to this page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Ineligible for speedy deletion. (The "patent nonsense" clause explicitly excludes implausible theories and hoaxes.) —Caesura(t) 13:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I just wanted to get this mess over with. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this user calling himself Night Gyr a kind of moral sensor or what? Information right is a basic freedom. Information denial is a dictatorship.--194.78.218.68 15:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struckout duplicate vote from IP. Caknuck 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • Please stop repeating your vote. It gives a false appearance that more than one person wants to keep this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was kind of buying it through the earth orbit, but it is hard to picture a rocket being able to carry to the moon enough fuel and oxidizer to land and bring the whole apparatus back for an earth landing. Von Braun and company had to bring back only a miniscule fraction of the original launch mass. If he can do this is is an unparalled genius, but extraordinary claims require at least SOME reliable and verifiable sources. Please re-create the article when the ship is more than a twinkle in the creator's eye, like when there are financial backers and news stories about it.Edison 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V. Likely hoax. Caknuck 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WolfKeeper 18:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable vaporware rocket, unsourced, etc. Sandstein 21:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verified. Feels like a snowball to me QuiteUnusual 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure Keep This is brand new exclusive information. It is going one step further then standard SSTO plans. If there is no oxygen use like described the mass goes down and much more becomes possible. Has anyone contacted Rocson for more details about it. Perhaps pictures. --John Coughan 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — John Coughan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Brand new exclusive information" is exactly what we don't allow here. Sandstein 09:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • another vote by sock puppet, the chances of a newly registered user editing both this discussion and the SSTM article to revert it to say single stage to moon is remote.WolfKeeper 09:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the only non-sockpuppet votes on this AFD are either for delete or speedy delete, is it possible to just snowball this? --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The SSTM page was changed by someone to "single stage to mars" instead of "single stage to moon".--John Coughan 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environmentality[edit]

Contested prod, which was removed by an IP on roughly the same day that the article would've been deleted - no reason given for the removal. This appears to be a neologism which hasn't caught on, basically. Luke's article exists, but a JSTOR search for the term gives very little else other than his article using it, which suggests very strongly that the broader academic community didn't pick up the slack after 1995 when the article was published. The word is used a bit, according to a Google for it, but these are either demonstrably in different contexts or in contexts which appear to be at odds with this one BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probable neologism, per nom. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO states that we need reliable secondary sources about the term before we have an article on a neologism. We have no such sources. GRBerry 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army Of Tomorrow[edit]

Single year student organisation, zero google hits, no obvious notibility SimonLyall 07:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Qaanaaq 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now; come back when you've existed for several years and have a notable impact on your school's culture. Alba 13:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "the organisation's aim is ongoing self-reflection regarding teaching and learning issues." Ongoing self reflection? Not a way to establish notability. Caknuck 18:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:ORG/WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Pushpaka Seva Sangham[edit]

Non-notable organisation & prod notice removed without comment. 3 google hits other than Wikipedia. A linked article on Pushpakadhwani, apparently a minor publication, was deleted recently as an expired prod. Mereda 07:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roy[edit]

New York fashion designer. This article has been tagged with notability and speedy tags throughout its existence, so I think it's time to get community consensus on this. I'm withholding judgment for now, pending new resources (other than than the ubiquitous Fashionweekdaily links). trialsanderrors 07:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are 555 unique Google hits (that's a lot) of pretty good quality. She seems to be a known designer. Pages like this one confirm the impression that she is known / talked about by others, which is all we need. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, that's a blog. Google News has 24 listings, mostly about people wearing her outfit. This one is somewhat about her (and 3 other designers). ~ trialsanderrors 08:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. I am not suggesting it's the New York Times. But it is evidence that people know/care who she is, which suggests she is notable in her field. There aren't a lot of Realiable Sources about deisgners of this kind, so we have to do with what we've got. - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - An apparent (if passing) Vogue mention is good enough for me. Crystallina 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Disputable borderline notability as a fashion designer (too early to tell much more once you cut through the PR-buzz efforts.... I'm not sure what a 2006 Bollywood fashion award for "Outstanding Contribution to American Fashion"[33] (for a designer who launched her first collection in 2005 and has dressed a British girl band of questionable notability[34])actually means? I don't see what her clothes have to do with Bollywood either, in style or association, apart from the very weak connection that she's half-Indian in ethnicity (and Bollywood doesn't represent all of India anyway). Is the Vogue editor meeting Roy just for her own sake, or partly or mainly due to Roy's husband?) but add in her borderline notability as socialite/wife of notable guy, and I guess there's enough for a weak keep. Article needs rewrite/editing to purge the PR copy though. If others come up with reasonable delete arguments, I'm probably an easy pushover to the other side.Bwithh 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has a reasoonable profile on Google News Archive including an article from 2004 titled "Rachel Roy's on a roll" from Women's Wear Daily. [35] She is married to hip-hop entrepreneur Damon Dash so her article could be merged with his but for mine, she is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe this article is a self-advert, and though it's speculation, seems to me like someone was paid to write the article. Pay attention for clues on the images, as well as some portions of the text.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, its clearly a PR exercise, and needs purging of content if kept. Images are okay - a lot of images on wikipedia are PR shots. Bwithh 19:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painful Keep. Clearly a vanity article, and disingenuous in classic PR fashion. (The Vogue editor is mentioned only as "one of the few invited" to the "intimate showing," which strongly suggests that she never went to it, and that almost no one else showed up either. Note that there is no mention in Vogue, brief or otherwise.) Plus, the sources are breathless fashion publications reprinting press releases. And yet, it satisfies the minimum requirements.Auto movil 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; will add sources to article. NawlinWiki 15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Startools[edit]

Sending here instead of deleting on expired prod. Notability is the concern. I think the article makes interesting claims beyond WP:MUSIC. - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The claims are indeed interesting. Shame they're unreferenced. May be swayed if reliable sources are introduced. GassyGuy 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Changing to weak keep in light of presented sources. Seems to be an acceptable and reasonably well-documented topic. GassyGuy 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Although they're odd references for a band, the National Review of Medicine (of Canada) [36] and SCO Health Service [37] have in-depth features on the band. Several reputable Ottawa area media sources (Ottawa Citizen, CJOH) mention the band appearing at local fundraisers. If we can substantiate the CD, then I'll upgrade my vote. Caknuck 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Star Tools! Heroes to guitar-playing young doctors throughout Ontario! We named our band Melena after the original Animalena and the Tar Stools (and because I'm a gastroenterologist with an odd sense of humour). Not sure if you can use WP:NMG reliably for this one, but this is probably the only band referenced in the National Review of Medicine. Refs in Maclean's also, wish it was available online -- Samir धर्म 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with refs provided by Caknuck, should be enough to meet WP:MUSIC, albeit barely: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media...", also, arguably, "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene..." with Ontario Medicine being the "local scene" in question. :) Xtifr tälk 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laughing weak keep per Caknuck's research, but if we ever tighten our standards for music significantly this probably won't make the cut. GRBerry 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Bengochea[edit]

This unsourced article doesn't say much about the subject's notability. Peter O. (Talk) 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Orphaned article. Subject was "one of the largest sheepherders in southern Idaho", but girth alone should not assert notability. Author is Joebengo, so this could be a vanity article for a deceased relative. Caknuck 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of meeting WP:BIO, no sources, WP:NOT for obituaries. Sandstein 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per sources found by User:Sandstein. NawlinWiki 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batavia, Suriname[edit]

Delete. It is a three word article!! It either needs to be expanded fully, or deleted. It seems the last edit was a while ago. Talk to Auroranorth 08:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Towns are generally considered notable. Sandstein 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Okay, towns are generally considered notable. But this article just says it is a town. Can't find any other information about it, not even the population. There has got to be a limit to notability! QuiteUnusual 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable towns are inherently notable. [38] I think shows that it does exist. Is also located in the Saramacca District. T REXspeak 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — i'm sorry, google doesn't spit out anything . i don't think that website is enough to verify it to me. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real town, ergo notable. Just because the article is a substub at present is no reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp. I've expanded the article very slightly, BTW. Grutness...wha? 06:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. That "Batavia Books" link that User:Dinosaur puppy found seems to be a publishing house in the Netherlands with no obvious connection to this supposed place. Precedent for deleting unverifiable locations exists; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnaa, Nigeria (3rd nomination). ergot 16:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling for "Saramacca batavia", i.e. with the district name, provides ample indication that the town exists: [39], [40], [41]; and [42] indicates it's even on Google Maps. Sandstein 19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; leaning toward keep. MCB 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Patten[edit]

Notability seems to stem from being the daughter of Chris Patten. Roles in minor TV series and theatre do not convince me. Bollywood role seems to have been a minor part. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - the Bollywood role seems to be relatively important in terms of the plot of a film which seems to have done well, although I don't know quite what qualifies as a "box office success" in Bollywood terms. Certainly if that's not the case, and the film is insignificant or her role is smaller than I think, she's not notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Alice Patten deserves an article as the role in the movie Rang De Basanti is very important. The movie happens to be the official entry for Academy Awards 2007 from India, so it is an important movie.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her role - not a minor one, but a key part of the plot structure - in a very major recent Bollywood movie is well known in India Bwithh 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a trivia fact at her much more notable father's page until she more obviously deserves independent mention. Eusebeus 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep I say keep her in wikipedia. Far less well-known actresses are in wiki, so why not someone who had such a key role in one of India's most important films of recent years? It's not alll about the who's who with tight abs out in American and the UK — 202.78.234.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. There are more important things to be contained into a serious encyclopedia. Articles like this are a show of the mediocre culture of the mean Wikipedian. --Attilios 21:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other actors with similar credentials don't have articles. It can be recreated later if she becomes notable. KrakatoaKatie 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABetX[edit]

Official site says "ABetX.com - the Auction Betting Exchange to launch soon" Non-existent entity 2005 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, fails WP:CORP, no reliable sources found on Google. MER-C 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Trebor 11:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and may nearly be spam. Qaanaaq 12:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "We will launch soon..." Get back to us when you do. Caknuck 16:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, looks like blatant spam to me, WP:CSD#G11, otherwise, Delete per nom. Xtifr tälk 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wickethewok 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chao World[edit]

No assertion of notability, no sources at all, completely unverifiable Delete as such. The Kinslayer 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 10:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google comes up with 24 hits after trying to filter out forums and adding Lionsoft. The fact that an editor placed Note: I cannot provide all of the information to complete a lot of data in this article, I will leave notes where stuff needs to be added. says that sources (other than the game and makers website) do not exist. —Mitaphane talk 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fan game. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable! Anomo 09:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk fetish[edit]

An unrecognised fetish, which produces 500 or so NSFW ghits [43] almost all of which are the phrase embedded in porn sites. No verifiable evidence that this actually exists beyond a few pornmongers. Eusebeus 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom James68 11:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing implausible about it, but there are no references provided in the article which show its discussion in reliable and verifiable sources, beyind blogs or websites.Edison 17:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have come across pornographic stories that employ this fetish (while pursuing my own different "interests") along with others. The fact that there are pornsites catering to the fetish would indicate that there are those with the fetish willing to pay for material of interest to them. Robovski 23:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are porn sites for every fetish under the sun having a porn site dedicated to the fetish doesn't imply notability. Whispering 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — not sourced, per nom. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 500 Ghits for a sex-related search? That's gotta be some kind of record for nonnotability. Agree that this is a completely plausable fetish, but WP:V and WP:RS are official policy, and neither has been satisfied here. ergot 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable! Anomo 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pingus[edit]

The result of this debate was delete no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No assertions of notability, no reliable third-party sources etc etc, fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR Delete. The Kinslayer 10:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the game's site has limited references, mostly articles from German Linux sites dating back to 2000 and 2002. Not enough here to merit an article. Caknuck 16:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. -- Sensenmann 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this game is the first GotM by The Linux Game Tome, which has revamped such games as Tux Racer, Super TuxKart, LinCity and SuperTux. It may not be notable in the general gaming world, but definitely notable in the FOSS community. --vossman 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Vossman. It should be noted that happypenguin.org has an Alexa ranking of ~45,000, which suggests that this game may be more notable than otherwise thought. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vossman. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is notable in the FOSS community. Val42 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For FOSS reasons stated above. Jdub7 05:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails WP:RS/WP:V. Happypenguin is of questionable notability/reliability itself, and thats the only sources presented. Wickethewok 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Vossman. --Duke of Duchess Street 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Yanksox 03:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane magic (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

WP:NOT Instruction manuals shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the d20 System Reference Document 3.5 says much of it can be reprinted or whatever in its license, doesn't mean Wikipedia should have the entire SRD in detail. I have only marked this one for deletion, but as I learn how and find more I will also marked them. Every last detail of the game is not required on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 10:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT as cited by Shadzar. As much of an old school gamer as I am, I don't think it is necessary or desireable to reprint this level of gameplay detail in Wikipedia even if it can be reprinted per the license. I don't know if the originator is still active here anymore, but maybe someone should let him/her know about the D&D Wikia because I think they would welcome this sort of contribution there since most of the SRD articles are redlinked.--Isotope23 16:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears that there is a license to print it, and I think that while this level of detail might not be desired, this is not a reason to delete the article. Editing it down is sufficient. (Unless, of course, the license indicates that the text, while can be reprinted, cannot be altered; in that case I'd change my opinion to delete.) --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to be clear, I'm not talking about the level of detail that the article goes into per Arcane Magic in the D&D world, I mean actually having an article about the concept of Arcane Magic is in and of itself too much detail in the context of D&D in my opinion, same as it would be to have an article about Divine Magic, Bard songs, etc. If consensus is that this doesn't violate WP:NOT then I would say the article should stand as it is. Better to have a comprehensive article if you are going to cover a topic.--Isotope23 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given RJHall's pointing out that OGL and GFDL are incompatible, changing to delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The SRD license is specific in stating that publications of the material must also adopt the same license. (See section 10 of the open gaming license.) This is inapplicable to wikipedia, so SRD-like content is not appropriate here. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Delete D&D includes hundreds of books and supplements and probably has been the topic of that many secondary sources in the 30 or so years of its existence. Despite the narrow focus, a well-sourced, project-appropriate article could be written on this topic. This, however, isn't it. This article is fundamentally unsourced and has critical copyvio problems due to the incompatibility of OGL with GFDL. I'm willing to do the legwork on this article, but if what is here gets deleted before I'm done, then so be it ... page history can always be restored by admin if necessary for GFDL compliance. Serpent's Choice 04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious violation of WP:NOT and WP:V. NawlinWiki 16:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Street Drop[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a game developed by a group of people in a small Canadian town. A Google search produces loads of false hits but nothing looking like a reliable source needed for verification. Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Allen3 talk 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and because of its lack of verifiability per WP:V. Crystallina 11:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from List of Diagnosis: Murder Episodes into List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes and redirect the former to the latter. Closer note: Most AFD "merge and redirect" decisions result in the article being evaluated merged into another and becoming a redirect; however, this case was unique as it was the reverse. Don't be confused :). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diagnosis: Murder episodes[edit]

A Similar Page has been in exsistence for sometime with more complete information and links to individual episode pages. Pat 11:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Geogre with message "Not an AfD matter, as it's obvious nonsense and untruth, which makes it vandalism." Debate closed by non-admin. —Caesura(t) 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Honk[edit]

This city doesn't exist, the article is probably started to be a rhyme word of Jan Pronk - Ilse@ 11:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templo De Dios[edit]

Normally I'm pretty lenient about church articles, but this one is rather new and right now only has about 100 members. I can't find any significant external coverage. Crystallina 11:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete; the article does not assert the importance of the group of people or organization it describes. —Caesura(t) 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or speedy) Doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 19:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete an no assertion of notablility. Tagged as such. Molerat 11:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positive and negative open spaces[edit]

Content is "Any outdoor space which possesses an identifiable shape is classified as positive. Similarly, Any outdoor space which does not possess an identifiable shape is classified as negative. this is stub". This article has too many problems for an exhaustive list: not much more than a simple dictionary definition, fails WP:NEO, unclear, unsourced, possible original research, dead end. Contested prod. MER-C 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. I can't even understand what the article is trying to say. —Caesura(t) 15:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSounds like terms thrown around by current architecture, but an article needs more content and references to show the term is more than a neologism.Edison 17:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef. No sources, so it may not be anything more than a neologism (if it's not completely made up). Doesn't even assert if its a architectural concept or what. --The Way 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced dictionary defiction. See also WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:Complete bollocks QuiteUnusual 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoniverse[edit]

Original research based on unreliable sources, used to foist the term to make categories such as Category:Whoniverse characters Tim! 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't bandy about the term bad faith lightly, but I am concerned that with his declared hostility towards the term, Tim may not be entirely objective about this. That the term Whoniverse is a well-used one is not really in dispute; whether or not it deserves a definition article I leave it to AFD, but the characterisation of the article as solely existing to foist the term is unfair and inaccurate. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether the article is kept or not, but I'd like to point out the term is in very large usage which is growing rapidly, googling will show you that. Compare with Buffyverse and Wizarding world, there is much room for expansion about the nature of the fictional universe itself. For the sake of the debate, count this as weak keep. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I share the opinion of Zythe regarding the usage of the term, but I am strongly in favour of keeping the article, as it is worthy of further development. Failing that, the redirect to Doctor Who should be restored.
  • Weak keep amd expand Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 16:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A new article, which helps to explain its sparseness, but it gets 19000 Google hits, so it appears to be of interest to fans of Dr. Who. Keep for same reason as comparable Buffyverse. Edison 17:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Angmering 17:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism unless reliable sources can be found (note: googlefight is not a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about "Whoniverse", just that it has more hits than whatever it's comparing. Even the Buffyverse article has more references than just googlefight, dubious as they are). ColourBurst 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above keeps. If it fails to be kept, then redirect to Doctor Who. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've certainly been familiar with the term Whoniverse for years and years, although I'm afraid I can't cite references. Daibhid C 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. I too am familiar with the term, have been since before using the internet more than 10 years ago. Robovski 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - fairly well used term among Dr Who fandom, although it borders on dictionary definition Otherwise, redirect to Doctor Who per above --Aim Here 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Widely used term in SF fandom, up there with Buffyverse. 23skidoo 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with massive, massive expansion. --IanIanSymes 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the launch of a spin off and another in the Works, has to be a keep. rob77

  • Keep; widespread term used to describe the Doctor Who fictional universe. I agree that google fight is a poor reference, but I have found a couple of better references ([44] for example). Rename to Doctor Who fictional universe if absolutely necessary. Laïka 14:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blech! "The fictional universe in which Doctor who and its spin-offs are set" or any other ridiculous rename option is a bit long, a bit like renaming Buffverse "The fictional universe in which Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Fray are set". The term exists, and is used more prevalently than any other term. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think I'll have fun with this article, given the revived show is doing more to create a fictional universe than anything previously. Wiki-newbie 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, spinoffs make it necessary -- SonicAD (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand. Maybe add some referances to differances from our own universe. -Jonathan D. Parshall 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's been pretty much universally used in Doctor Who fandom for at least a decade. It's so well used that I never had any doubt about using the term as a name for my own website, which is a reference guide to the whoniverse. If Whoniverse goes, then so should Buffyverse.--Bouncelot 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been familiar with the term for just under two years now. I suppose we could merge it with Doctor Who as it's quite short, but the Doctor Who article is way too long already. RobbieG 10:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 recommendation to merge Den Den Town into this article. --MCB 04:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nipponbashi[edit]

Article's region is already covered by the Chuo-ku, Osaka article and fails to assert notability of the specific location (or define it, for that matter). Brad Beattie (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to the Chuo-ku, Osaka article. ColourBurst 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aspdoe 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This neighborhood is well known and deserving of coverage. Even so, it would strengthen the Chuo-ku article if we put the content there (until that article becomes big enough to split). That would place Nipponbashi in a broader context and get it more attention. But it's also acceptable to have a separate article on this neighborhood. Fg2 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hrm, I think you might be right there, Fg2. Redirect to Chuo-ku until it grows into its own notable article? Sounds like the best option. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with Fg2. This could be an article, but it doesn't need to be at the moment. Redirect without bias against an article appearing later. Dekimasu 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nipponbashi is derived from the bridge name across Dotonbori. It located across two wards, Chuo-ku and Naniwa-ku. So, redirect to Chuo-ku will not be appropriate... rather Den Den Town might be a better candidate. Masao 10:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woh! Don't redirect to Dotonbori! The two are adjacent areas, but completely different.MightyAtom 06:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Den Den Town. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is independant cultural references to the area. i.e. The famous play Nihonbashi by Izumi Kyoka which takes place in the are. The play was also made into a movie in the 50's. It's a famous neghiborhood which really deserves coverage outside of an article on the legal municipality. There is much more information available at ja:日本橋 (東京都). --Kunzite 21:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the Nihonbashi play is about Nihonbashi, which is the bridge in Tokyo, not Nipponbashi, the bridge under deletion consideration here (and incidentally has the same kanji). ColourBurst 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. Strike it. I should have clicked the link rather than typed the name in after searching for 日本橋. --Kunzite 23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Den Den Town. Nipponbashi is the Akihabara district of Osaka, and deserves its own entry. However, there is no need for those two seperate articles.MightyAtom 06:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was just thinking...since Nipponbashi is the official name of the district, and Den Den Town is just a local nickname, maybe it would be better to merge and redirect Den Den Town into Nipponbashi? For example, there is a Nipponbashi train station, that you take to get to Den Den Town, but no Den Den Town station. MightyAtom 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be amenable to that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Would anyone be against that? We could have a Den Den Town subsection in the Nipponbashi article. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:MOS for place names states the article title should be the most recognizable in English. But I'm not sure which is more used (I'm guessing Den Den Town is but I'm not sure.) ColourBurst 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Den Den Town is more common, but if you say Den Den Town you only mean one part of Nipponbashi... so Nipponbashi makes more sense. The train station in Den Den Town isn't even Nipponbashi Station, it's Ebisucho Station. Nipponbashi Station is quite a bit farther north at Sennichimae-dori and Ebisucho Station is most of the way to the Tsutenkaku. Either way, it has to be made clear that Nipponbashi is not just Den Den Town. By the way, Nipponbashi is also the site of the national bunraku puppet theater. Dekimasu 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have just found the person who should expand the Nipponbashi article...;)MightyAtom 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniak nationalism[edit]

Started its life as Serbs' POV "Unitary Islamic Bosnia", kept as no consensus at previous AfD. Rare neutral commenters suggested "NPOVize and source", which has never happened; in the meantime, it oscillated between strong pro-Bosniak and anti-Bosniak POVs and no one touched it for a long time. This is not an article, this is a graffiti wall, and a shame for Balkans and Wikipedia. Yes, I know the subject is encyclopedic, verifiable and potentially interesting, but this is not an excuse for its existence in this form. I feel that only the re-AfD-ing (to be honest, I meant to delete it myself per WP:IAR but refrained) could turn community's attention to it. Duja 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. An appeal to the closing admin (I foresee a tough job): as a potentially heated debate may emerge, I suggest taking far more the reasoning than votecount into account. Personally, I consider keep and rewrite votes futile, unless someone puts up the sleeves and improves the article in the meantime. Thanks.

  • Delete as nominator. Duja 12:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of encyclopedic content, WP:NOR, WP:RS. The article basically says there might have been some such thing as Bosniak nationalism, or maybe not, then goes on to list some vaguely related ethno-nationalistic grievances, allegations and slanders. Also, the sourcing is poor (I can't readily find a basis for any of the article's assertions in the sources provided), and the article's history indicates we mustn't expect an encyclopedic rewrite anytime soon. This is one waste of bytes. Sandstein 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is garbage. The topic could make into useful article once. Pavel Vozenilek 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whenever we wrote about the nationalism, the point of view is competely different. Is it possible to write about the nationalism from independent point of view? Don't know, but the nationalism still remains and the article (in this form) does not deserve to stay. --MaNeMeBasat 07:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for now. This should be revisited some time in the future, but right now it's just crap. It would be easier to rewrite from scratch.--estavisti 07:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by admin Duja (reason: CSD G11, advertising). Non-admin close of orphaned AfD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivirtua[edit]

Contested prod, spam for a non notable web business Nuttah68 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kokiri[edit]

Unreferenced, possible original research; no real claim of notability / significance. A Google search for "Project Kokiri" returned eight matches - four are links to this entry or its mirrors, and the other four are unrelated topics. Dsreyn 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a WP:HOAX to me. Delete unless verification produced. Alba 13:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and absolutely reeks of hoax: a military operation named after Zelda characters?!? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Caknuck mentioned, it preceded LoZ, both likely sourced from Maori words. Tyciol 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. PJM 14:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't do hoaxes. Unfortunately the URL I had is gone. Tyciol 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax/nonsense. I could not find any references to either "Operation Kokiri" or even "F-16"/"F16" on the RNZAF Web site. ("Kokiri", however, is a Maori word.) Caknuck 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even if sourced, the content of this article does not establish notability. Why should anyone care about this project? --Richard 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a hoax. Hello32020 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degresslessness[edit]

Video game cruft - the game is certainly notable, but a cheat code is hardly worthy of its own entry. Also, only eight Google hits, so seems like possible original research. Dsreyn 13:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cheat code is easily verifiable -- either it's in the source or it isn't, so either it works or it doesn't. In my opinion, that means WP:NOR doesn't apply. However, there is no excuse for this to exist as a separate entry. Merge to Doom II and redirect if verified; delete if not. Alba 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does seem strange thought that a cheat code for such a popular game doesn't have more web hits. Dsreyn 13:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google the actual code, IDDQD, it gets hits. Tyciol 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I'd say redirect to god mode, but this isn't even the correct spelling. It's actually "Degreelessness". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard it called that. Redirecting it to god mode is a good idea though, I just didn't know about that article when I made this. Tyciol 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Degresslessness +Doom gets 2 Google hits, and one of them is this article. Degreelessness +Doom gets over 1000 hits. I'm 99.9999% sure "Degresslessness" is a misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Starblind is right. Delete as an uncommon misspelling. Danny Lilithborne 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is it misspelled but the subject is about one of the most trivial, unencyclopedic things I've seen in the AfD. An article for a cheat code? Come on! Think what kind of precedent it would set to keep this. Wikipedia is not a gameguide not is it a place to collect random, unencyclopedic information. --The Way 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misspelling. Possibly add into the God mode article. --Richard 19:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Flowerparty☀ 10:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fit For Life[edit]

Non-notable racing horse, does not satisfy WP:NN. Dsreyn 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Fit for Life. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. PJM 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I assume you looked, but just in case - Fit for Life is about a diet, not a race horse. Dsreyn 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The diet is never referred to with 'for' capitalized that I have seen. Furthermore, the horse predates the diet, and deserves mention for purposes of disambiguation. Tyciol 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. If the horse is notable for something then document it in the article. Otherwise, delete it. --Richard 19:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. This horse may be notable, or may become notable: but this text fails to make a case. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fit for Life. nirvana2013 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by Starblind. Non-Admin closing Afd. Dina 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Boucher[edit]

  1. Speedy Delete just a collection of a handful of quotes. Not even any info on who is Real Boucher.--Ramdrake 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Speedy delete as A1, A7, or G1. Tagged as such. —Caesura(t) 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Week XVIII: All Growed Up[edit]

Ridiculously detailed and fairly breathless article about one Australian university's annual event -- not the event generally, ONE SPECIFIC YEAR's staging.

Full of encyclopedic detail such as [the team] had also intended to make a strong push for the scavenger hunt title, but their plans were skittled early on their Bairnsdale-Canberra trip, when they unfortunately hit a kangaroo and damaged their car near Sale, Victoria (no team members were injured). Comes complete with a sucession box for including the other 18 years, but thankfully the creator has only completed Green Week XIX: I Was Only 19 (also being nominated).

Was Prod tagged, but tags removed with the comment deleted Proposal for deletion as link to main Green Week article given at top of page. This is a reference to one year of this event, just like each olympics is reffered to individually. Yes, JUST like the Olympics. Calton | Talk 13:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete first 11; remainder need own AfD or merge.. – Avi 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Passion (DJ Small & LV Club Mix)[edit]

Non-notable remixes of non-notable songs; fails WP:MUSIC. We don't need an article for every song ever written, much less the various remixes of those songs. This AfD also applies to the other songs from the album:

  1. Dance with the Wolves (Harem Disco Mix)
  2. Drum 'n' Dance (DJ Small & LV Club Mix)
  3. Play , Musician! (Treat Brothers Happy Dub)
  4. Wind Song (Michael Nekrasov Zebra Mix)
  5. Wild Dances (DJ Small & LV Club Mix)
  6. The Same Star (Treat Brothers Re-Pop)
  7. The Tango We Used to Dance (DJ Small & LV Club Mix)
  8. Dance with the Wolves (Treat Brothers Remix)
  9. The Same Star (DJ Zebra & Sergei Repin Fusion House Remix)
  10. Wind Song (DJ Small & LV Club Mix)
  11. Wild Dances (C.V.T. vs DJ Nick 2005 Club Edit)

Kafziel Talk 14:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Actually, it would be unfair to categorize all the songs themselves as non-notable ("Wild Dances" being one that screams notability) but remixes do not get separate articles. If any of these remixes is official/documentable/somehow important, it can be mentioned within the article for the song if that exists. GassyGuy 15:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Not every song (especially remixed songs) need an own article on wikipedia. -- Luigi-ish 17:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Kavadi carrier 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional proposal[edit]

    • For adds, I want to add these songs to the list too, as they barely got information in the article, or if there is any, this could be merged into the album the song appears on:
  1. "Ty (song)"
  2. "Balada pro princessu" --> merge video info to the album
  3. "Svitanok"
  4. "Ostannya Poema"
  5. "Kolyskova"
  6. "Myt' Vesny"
  7. "Prochannya z Disko"
  8. "Znaju Ja" --> merge video info to the album
  9. "Oj, Zagraimy, Muzychenku" --> merge into "Play, Musician"
  10. "Like a Hurricane (Ruslana song)"
  11. "Accordion Intro"
  12. "The Tango We Used to Dance"
  13. "Wild Dances Part 2"
  14. "Wild Passion"
  15. "Dobrij vechir"

-- Luigi-ish 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need AfD for that. You can perform the appropriate merges yourself, and the ones that don't have anything to merge can just redirect to the album. GassyGuy 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to get consensus on them anyway; a lot of the songs Luigi-ish listed are on Template:Ruslana; removing them from the template without consensus is likely to cause a dispute there. Kafziel Talk 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that getting consensus would be wise, but this is not the place to get consensus for merges. That's more of a talk page thing. GassyGuy 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more of a Wikipedia:Proposed mergers thing, if he's going to get any kind of neutral feedback. I'd still vote delete for all of the ones he added (with the possible exception of that Accordion Intro since it claims to be her signature song). Kafziel Talk 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, delete the "Accordion Intro" too, it certainly is not her signature song. her signature song would be "Wild Dances". You're right that I could do the merges myself, just wanted others opinion before actually taking actions. -- Luigi-ish 12:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need not hijack another editor's AfD to do that. Kavadi carrier 08:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 09:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abysmal ooze[edit]

Dungeons and Dragons creature known only from the non-notable Dreadmire. Including in this nomination Aquatic ooze, Blood pudding (Dungeons & Dragons), Jelly curd, Jelly quasit, Jelly wraith, Ooze demon and Oozoid for exactly the same reason. Delete all Pak21 14:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What is your rationale for setting Blood Pudding apart from the rest?--Rosicrucian 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Hey, maybe the articles will roll a critical failure on their Wikipedia score and delete themselves. :) Justin Eiler 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as non-notable trivia. Fairsing 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom. --Agamemnon2 09:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom.--Robbstrd 14:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per nom except the titular abysmal ooze, which should redirect to benthic zone ➥the Epopt 02:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowena Blackburn[edit]

Hoax, or non-notable. 1 Google hit. Prod removed. Pan Dan 14:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough to assert notability. Fails WP:V. Caknuck 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't assert notability; fails WP:V. Hello32020 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probable hoax, totally unsourced. NawlinWiki 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die Verbannten Kinder Evas[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion. Nomination is contested, with an assertion of notability on the article's talk page. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My German is pretty poor these days, so it may take a bit to go through the sources, but from the outset, I think being on Napalm Records might meet WP:MUSIC. Article needs definite cleanup to get rid of/reformat the silly table if this is kept.--Isotope23 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, possibly reqrite. Incomplete translation SYSS Mouse 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The don't absolutely, positively, objectively meet any one criteria in WP:MUSIC, but it's clear from doing a Google search (33,900 hits) and poking around at some of the pages that they are a real presence in the Goth Metal scene in Europe. They've kind of got an "Evanescence (sp?) with Keyboards" thing going on. Article was created by a band member (Very Naughty), but if he sticks around to make contributions to articles that he doesn't have an interest in, I'm prepared to let it slide. - Richfife 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on formal grounds. No clear assertion of notability, no clear indication of meeting WP:BAND, no reliable third-party sources cited in article. Sandstein 20:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here two reasons why "Die Verbannten Kinder Evas" meet WP:MUSIC:1. Napalm Records is a well known independant label that is existing over 15 years and selling their products in europe and USA and "die verbannten kinder evas" released already 2 albums on this label 2. It has a member of a band that is notable on the english wikipedia page Summoning. also there are lots of third party sources if you google around; lots of interviews and reviews about the albums. Sorry about this (Very Naughty) thing, i did not think about that. i just saw how many referred urls i get cause of the german wikipedia article about this band (also cause of the John Dowland article on the english wikipedia), so i thought it is a good idea to create this article; actually i tried to make it as objective as possible. anyway already before i got this speedy deletion nomination i already made a page about a tunesian band that i really (Amine-Hamza_M'RAIHI) like and am in contact with; so i don't only make articles of my interesst.RichardLederer 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but requiring a lot of cleanup, per RichardLederer. --Eyrian 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RichardLederer.--Kchase T 12:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Player hater[edit]

Neologism with one unconfirmed citation and thoroughly unclear notability. Delete or transwiki if properly documented. --Nlu (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You are obviously unfamiliar with American culture if you have never heard of this term before. That is the purpose of Wikipedia, to teach people about cultural phenomena. As usual, you are too quick to delete again. --DougHolton
  • Neutral It's a common term, usually spelled "Playa Hater", often shortened to just "Hater" ("Don't be a hater!", "Hate the game, not the player!"). The fact that my white, post-Mormon, middle aged ass has heard it should say something. Nevertheless, I'm not sure this is the right place for it. - Richfife 16:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's a pretty prevalent expression. 39,000 ghits for "playa hater" 91,700 for "player hater." Also the title of a song by The Notorious B.I.G.. I'm looking for some cites in the Ghits. Dina 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I put 3 cites on the talk page (can't do much more at the moment.) The Ebony article and the NY Times article look like good sources to me. Dina 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but Rename As much as I despise this term, its very common. I have heard it many times both in my hometown in Illinois and here in Denver where I live, and its certainly common on rap albums and TV. May need more sources and should be renamed "Playa Hata" or "Playa Hater." --The Way 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Widespread or not, WP:WINAD, people. Sandstein 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe this violated WP:WINAD because, aside from having a definition, the term 'playa hater' also has cultural significance and implications that could be drawn out. --The Way 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources mentioned by Dina. I'm not big into hip-hop culture, but even I know this term. The sources mentioned by Dina are good. Mitaphane talk 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedia article is very necessary, move to Playa hata.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Spunky Toffee (talk • contribs)
  • FYI - User 70.232.62.149 has removed the AfD notice from the page under discussion. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Improv 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. The article here is not about "playa hatas", who they are, but it is about the word and its usage, hence wiktionary is its place. Please don't forget that there are various places to store various information, dictionaries, thesauruses, garbage bins... `'mikkanarxi 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the article as it stands may be more of a dicdef, but I think a keep is in order if there is more to say about the word than a 2 line definition. This NY Times piece about the cultural "phenomenon" that is "playa hating" (what a weird sentence to write) seems to indicate to me that there is more to say. Furthermore, I see the potential for useful links into this article from other articles about rap culture. It is a cultural reference as well as a word. Not my personal culture, which is why a well-written WP article would be helpful should I encounter the concept within WP or elsewhere. Dina 12:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that we need more articles about subcultures and social realities that general public does not come across very often. It adds to Wiki's diversity. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, and it would be great if it were linked to something besides user talk pages and a dozen redirects from different spellings. <sigh!> —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 15:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, see WP:POINT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible[edit]

Non-notable, NPOV violations, poor writing style, and is religiously and morally wrong. --XLR Freak 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Let's keep it real, folks. Justin Eiler 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Speedy keeper Don't feed the... Anger22 16:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep You're hilarious. WP:POINT. Buh-bye. - Richfife 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 11:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G.Q. Gallo[edit]

Person does not appear to meet notability requirements. ↪Lakes (Talk) 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no claims to notability that I can recognise as such, no indication of meeting WP:BIO. Sandstein 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. He has won the AWA World Tag Team Championship twice. While the AWA is still not around(it folded into the WWE). I would say it would put him under people "that have played in a professional league". Mitaphane talk 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AWA didn't fold into the WWE, it went out of business on its own. The WWE simply bought the old AWA tape library. The current AWA that this wrestler was a tag champion for is being run by the Gagne family and is little more than a small independant with ties to a couple of big time Japanese promotions. Stephen Day 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just going by the information in AWA's own article. Perhaps it should be updated then. —Mitaphane talk 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fine overall, AWA Superstars of Wrestling is mentioned and what is there is factual, but the number of promotions linked to the current AWA is small (twenty in total world-wide) with most running shows within a very small area. ZERO-ONE MAX in Japan is the only one of any mention. The current AWA Tag-Team title and the historic one aren't really the same either, even though their histories are linked. Somebody winning that title isn't really playing in a professional league. If that was the case then where are all the articles for NWA Tag-Team Champions from that organization's period in the wilderness. Knuckles Nelson for instance, and if you say "Who?" then I hope you see my point. Stephen Day 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable enough. Move to a wrestling wiki. James Duggan 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable idependant wrestler. Stephen Day 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this wrestler has worked alongside names that are now just making it in ECW etc. His current promotion has supplied 7 workers in recent years to WWE and, in very short order, I suspect Gallo will get the call up too. Maybe Wikpedia can take some credit for scouting notables early —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.65.53.89 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-26T22:46:50.
Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ↪Lakes (Talk) 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets the bare minimum of notability in regards to a Indy Wrestler. Has managed to hold a few regional titles and recieved attention from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling in order to clean it up a bit. As a part of our project I believe it should be put on our to do list to see if we can clean the article up before it is listed for deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NegroSuave (talk • contribs) 2006-10-27T17:26:37.
Comment: He doesn't meet notability requirements in regards to being an indy wrestler, and as such it doesn't matter if the article could be cleaned up, since it just should not exist. ↪Lakes (Talk) 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Hasn't wrestled in any well known indy feds. Even the titles he's held aren't that notable. James Duggan 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. KrakatoaKatie 02:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos One[edit]

Fictional ship that only appeared in one film. Philip Stevens 17:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or merge Star Trek trivia has frequently been seen as relevant on Wikipedia, despite what would normally be seen as a lack of notability in the "real world." However, if kept, the article needs the Star Trek template {{startrek2}}. Justin Eiler 17:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yanksox 03:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant Larry[edit]

Appears to be an act in a contest at present, possibly getting press but not well established. Authors contested speedy deletion, so I open it for community consideration Geogre 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Since I pulled the trigger on the speedy delete, I think the act is achieving fame at present but is not yet sufficiently notable and stable for an encyclopedia article. Geogre 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article claims appearancein a short film by John Landis, and their site has plenty of press articles. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Take it from someone that works with a lot of sketch groups, these guys aren't any more notable than a lot of other groups that aren't on here. They aren't in the film with John Landis yet, they're just a finalist with other people. Not notable enough.--Twintone 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the 6 finalists did get their films made by Landis. The films in question are avialalbe for viewing and voting on JibJab. We are, of course, talking about very short films here though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, the existence of the film is not testimonial, either way. If the film is distributed, shown, and talked about, this is a cinch. Otherwise, maybe not. Geogre 18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment First, NOTE ABOUT NOMINATION: Elephant Larry is a professional troupe, not just some act in a contest. They've been full-time sketch actors since they all graduated from Cornell, where they were in a troupe together. Second, FULL DISCLOSURE: I've seen Elephant Larry three times, I am a huge fan, and they have performed at my (Brandeis) comedy troupe's annual sketch festival. Third, I'm arguing to keep the article because of the mammoth press section on elephantlarry.com- they have tons of third-party citations. A look simply at their press packet shows quotes from the NY Times, The Onion, and Time Out New York. -- Kicking222 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment The sketch currently on JibJab, Tall Cop Short Cop, is one of my favorites of theirs. Hi.Lar.I.Ous. -- Kicking222 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — notable, passes the google test with 57,500 hits. i'd love to see some sources though since they're pretty plentiful. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above. --Haham hanuka 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Glover[edit]

Non-notable politician. Was only elected last week, local councillors only represent a few thousand people. Tangotango 17:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable policitian.--§hanel 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete - Non Notable politician, article full of unsubstantiated rumours and partisan viewpoints Littlemonkey86 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) — littlemonkey86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete, no indication of press coverage for this politician, also seems to attract slanders. Sandstein 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - let the world know he is lazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.155.68 (talk • contribs)

  • Retain - all the other councillors in Manchester are included, why delete this one? It seems to be that Councillor Glover is being victimised by acrimonious opponents. There has already been a debate on Wikipedia about Manchester councillors. There are no grounds for deletion .. Rhyddfrydol 10:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, the grounds are in WP:BIO: it says we keep only "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." If you think the other councillors don't meet this standard, you're free to nominate them for deletion also. Sandstein 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobrainer Delete. The subject is not even on the scale. Search of Google news archive reveals the following:
"Charles glover" + gorton = 5 hits, none relevant
"Charles glover" + oldham = 5 hits, none relevant
"Charles glover" + manchester = 19 hits, none relevant. For most politicians, there is at least something. Not a dicky bird here. I rest my case. Ohconfucius 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Why delete this one when you haven't deleted all the other Manchester Councillors and you have allowed articles from much more non-notable politicians such as Alex Hilton and Kerron Cross. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.176.178 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please see the comments to Rhyddfrydol (also !voting "retain") above. - Tangotango 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Is much more notable than other politicians on Wikipedia that have not been proposed for deletion. Charles Glover is pretty high profile considering he knocked out the leader of Oldham Labour Group and was the candidate in one of the most fiercely fought by elections Manchester has ever seen. — Possible single purpose account: Thepoliticaloverlord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Delete -- subject seems to fail our inclusion standards. Jkelly 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Donald Bradman. I'm reading the delete opinions as not objecting to the content being covered in Bradman's article. A redirect after the merge is complete will satisfy anybody who does search for the batting average. Yomanganitalk 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99.94[edit]

99.94 is not itself notable; in a cricketing context, any content worthy of inclusion must actually be about incidents and achievements in Donald Bradman's test career, not about the number. RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is about achievement... perhaps the most supreme achievement ever accomplished by any sportsman. --Dweller 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The 99.94 article emerged from a conversation at the cricket Wikiproject. 99.94 is a number of huge significance to millions of cricket lovers the world over. It is probably the most famous statistic in the sport and the articles should not be merged. Rather, the 99.94 article needs some further expansion. --Dweller 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean here? I don't read that discussion as a consensus to create an article. I do not disagree that the number is of interest, and a matter for wonder: I am merely trying to find out whether it is verifiably notable. I'm willing to be convinced, but what can possibly go in the article that should not be in the Donald Bradman article? Similarly, it's Bradman that's notable, not the number that happens to be his average. Can you think of a cricketing event that would have turned out differently as a result of Bradman averaging more (or less)? Can I take a musical analogy? Consider: should 9 be documented as the number of symphonies Beethoven wrote? The symphonies are documented at Beethoven, and the influence of the number is documented at curse of the ninth. My point is that it's not 9 that's notable in that context, it just happens to be the number of symphonies he wrote: it's the influence the number had on other composers. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The figure is notable, like a Beethoven symphony, or an album by The Verve. It was the product of an extraordinarily superhuman career and a touchingly human incident at the end of that career. It can and does include information that is overly detailed for the main Bradman article and to which I'm continuing to add. --Dweller 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Beethoven is mentioned in 9 (number). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge. This information is aptly covered in Donald Bradman's article, and the coverage there could be expanded. However, this article is not about 99.94 the number or (obviously) 99.94 the year, and the idea of an article under the topic being about this seems ludicrous. Unless 99.94 is some kind of notable neologism, or a nickname for Donald Bradman, we shouldn't have a redirect from 99.94 to Donald Bradman, so we should delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm perplexed. I thought that the criterion was notability. It doesn't need to be a neologism (>50 years since he retired, unlikely to be new) or was someone's nickname. --Dweller 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here, the issue is naming. Does this info belong in an encyclopedia? Sure, I think it does. Should it be in an article about "99.94"? I really don't think so. It should absolutely be in an article about Bradman (it is), and other articles about Cricket more generally, or even an article on outstanding records in sports generally. Or, put it from another perspective: this may be the most important thing to say about the number 99.94, but in the scheme of numbers, 99.94 is quite unimportant, and right now all we have there is an article about 99.94 that includes one piece of trivia. Mangojuicetalk 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - merge any info not already there into D.Bradman. 99.94 not a notable number outside of cricket so does not justify own article. Lethaniol 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wasn't aware that notability criteria meant that subjects had to be notable outside of their own area. You might as well argue for deleting Asda for not being notable outside of shops/shopping. --Dweller 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Donald Bradman. That would be like creating the article 1.12 just for Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA, or .406 for Ted Williams' 1941 season. Wildthing61476 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know much about baseball, but if those figures were astonishingly, staggeringly better (by c.65%) than anything anyone else has achieved over a career and they're figures known to millions all over the world, I'd say they may be notable too. --Dweller 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say those statistics are in a rather different category, because they're statistics for one season, not a whole career. 2632 might be a better example, and that is in 2000 (number). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information is already located in two other places. I'm really big on pointing out the precedent not deleting certain articles would set. If we keep this then every number that has statistical significance in sports must be kept (the number of most homeruns in baseball, for example) which is clearly ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Statistical information like this is important in the context of the articles on the sport, the person achieving the record and the article on records in that sport. It, however, does not need its own article. --The Way 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, fantastic achievement, but the proper place for the information is in the Bradman article. No need at all for a separate article here. - fchd 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page for a proposed rename of the article

  • Strong Keep 99.94 is absolutely unique and of special significance to millions of cricket fans all over the world. Though it may not seem important to those who live in non-cricketing countries, I assure you it is very significant to cricket fans. Jayanta Sen 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm a bit torn on this one, but I think it's worth keeping. I'm almost persuaded by Wildthing's argument that we are opening the floodgates to lots of other numbers that happen to be sports statistics. But in the end, I can't think of anything quite as iconic as Bradman's average, that isn't an integer (integers already have good homes). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number isn't significant or notable, Bradman is. Nobody is ever going to search for 99.94 and go "ooh, look Don Bradman averaged 99.94" QuiteUnusual 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no point discussing this number outside the context of Don Bradman, and any information that would go on this page is better placed on Bradman's page. -dmmaus 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since its in the Bradman article, why does it need to be here? I agree that this will lead to other 'statistic' articles. 755 (868 in Japan), 4,256, 2,131. And every single person will be able to argue that theirs is special for one reason or another like the proponents have here. Montco 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mean it them, but I do now. Was never a big Ripken fan.Montco 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The number is probably unique but I doubt anybody would ever want to specifically search for Bradman's average. GizzaChat © 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd argue that this is a notable statistic all on its own. Lankiveil 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge with Donald Bradman notably statistical assessment. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has PO Box 9994 in each city it is based in honour of this average see [45]. However that is better discussed in the Bradman article. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - belongs with Don Bradman stuff. JROBBO 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Is this result something that might be discussed by anyone not knowing who Don Bradman is? If the answer to this is no, it shouldn't have a separate article. If somebody convinces me it's yes (or irrelevant), I'll consider changing to Weak Keep (though I realize this is not a vote). Delta Tango • Talk 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Donald Bradman, merging if necessary; I can't see any possible content for this article that wouldn't belong in that one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. The article contains some more substance now than when the AfD started, but wouldn't mind it if it is merged into Bradman or a related article. Tintin (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I have nothing else to say that hasn't already been said. This isn't notable enough for its own article, but absolutely notable enough to have even more context than already exists in the Bradman article. -- Kicking222 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been included in the list of number-related deletions. Confusing Manifestation 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, A record is worth mentioning if it is from a Major League player, or if it appears in the Guinness Book of World Records. Be sure to indicate the year the record was set in order to facilitate removal when a new record is set. Now the Guinness site is not forthcoming with any information, although a Google search did give me a tantalising result to guinnessworldrecords.co.uk/au, which turned out not to work. It is a notable statistic, and there are many Australians who would be able to answer you "What's the significance of 99.94?" even if they don't know much about cricket. Still, the number is only really notable in relation to Bradman, so I would suggest either have the article redirect to his article, or else have it redirect to 99 (or possibly 9000 (number), where 9994 would go), and include a mention of it there, in parallel to way integers are listed on collective pages. Confusing Manifestation 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the above policy says a 'record is worth mentioning' which is logically disctinct from saying a 'record is worth having its own independent article' --The Way 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk page for discussion of a rename away from a numeric. --Dweller 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete and take into into Bradman article. It is indeed an iconic number, but I simply don't see anybody searching for it as a number without reference to Bradman, and to give it its own article is non encyclopedic.Johnlp 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think someone will search for "0.999..."? --Dweller 07:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Dweller I was waiting for someone to bring that up (.999 was a featured article a few days ago). That's a mathematical article, which is a bit different. I'd say, at least personally, peculiar numbers like that which have a unique significance in mathematics and are more likely to be searched for by people looking for articles in that subject. And besides, .999 has nothing better to link to or be merged into, it's not associated with anything but itself and the abstract mathematical concepts underlying it. 99.94, on the other hand, IS associated with something that it relies upon. People are far more likely to search for the man associated with 99.94 than vice versa, the same is not the case for .999 and other mathematical numbers of significance. And notice that 3.14 redirects to Pi and not vice versa.. --The Way 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As the originator (almost the only defender!) and only contributor to this article, I see no reason to fight what seems like overwhelming consensus. Some of the arguments presented here and on the talk page are very persuasive and I'd like to graciously concede. Will an admin please close this Afd. I'd argue for leaving a redirect to Bradman's article. I have pasted a copy of the 99.94 article into my sandbox and plan to gently insert appropriately into Bradman's main article, trying not to step on any toes along the way. No doubt there are a number of watchers of that article who'll keep me in line if I exceed the mark. Thank you everyone who participated in this Afd. I hope that my defence of the article has remained "vigorous" rather than "heated". --Dweller 08:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- informative article. Nileena joseph 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I immediately knew what the article was about on seeing the title. It is an australian/cricket special number, and the article goes a little way to reflecting that. No reason to delete. The number takes on "notability," as much as I hate that concept, due to its distance from the rest of the cricket world. Ansell 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, 99.94 is about Donald Bradman, and him alone. —Pengo talk · contribs 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it might not make much sense to people not familiar with cricket, but for cricket fans it does. It's unique atchievement. It should not be deleted, it should not be merged. This absolutely unique record deserves an article of its own. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already covered in Donald Bradman article no need for a article on it's own. Whispering 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise-ready[edit]

Original research defining a very open-ended term. Google search for "enterprise-ready" -wikipedia +scalability +maintainability +reliability +compatibility yields no results backing up this treatment of the subject [46]. Mangojuicetalk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I get a number of IT trade publications, and "enterprise-ready" is a fairly common term (though not always hyphenated), even appearing in headlines with no need for explanation. I suspect just about everyone working in IT or executive management would recognise the term. The definition used in the article is basically correct, but the overuse of "must" makes it sound too authoritive--in reality, it's one of those terms that is slightly nebulous by nature. Of course, the big question is whether it should have an article. I'm not really sure. It's a common term and I surely wouldn't call it a neologism, but I can't imagine how to exapand it further than the extended dicdef it already is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Starblind says is quite correct, but policy says that no sources = WP:OR = deletion. Also, WP:WINAD. Sandstein 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "The term entered the mainstream through marketing efforts." This article is essentially a wordy tautology: an elaboration of a term which, as Andrew Lenahan notes, is inherently vague and in vogue because of that vagueness. Contains further jargon like "SLAs", whatever that means. This is also full of inappropriate top-level abstractions like "systems" and "solutions". - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reeks of marketing material, and no sources to satisfy WP:NEO.-- danntm T C 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the comments of Andrew Lenahan; good for buzzword bingo, not much else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Finch (referee)[edit]

This was marked as a speedy, but is technically not a speedy candidate since it asserts some notability. I have no real opinion on the encyclopedic merits of an article on a Football League referee, but since someone thought it should be speedied, I guess ought to be discussed here. No vote/procedural listing. -- Ferkelparade π 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unless there is something that distinguishes this referee from others. For example, Don Koharski was a professional ice hockey referee that was involved in a well publicized incident. -- Whpq 20:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — sorry, i don't think there is anything distinguishable: 6 google hits. fails on notability. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous recognition[edit]

This is basically a dictionary definition. It was tagged for transfer to wiktionary 5 July 2006. On 18 September the tag was removed as having been transferred, but the article still remains and is still a dic def. Emeraude 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing wrong with the article, we're just not a dictionary. EVula 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lot more can be added: are there cultural differences between posthumous recognitions? What are people posthumously recognized for? Are there notable examples of this? Where does the concept of posthumous recognition come from? The article is a stub with potential. Posthumous recognition is an encyclopedic subject, and I don't agree with the nom that the article is a dicdef. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 17:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Expand While it is little more than a definition now, it is an expansive enough concept and topic to warrant an article and could be expanded. History of posthumous recognition could be added, one or two more examples.... --The Way 06:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & expand. It definitely needs sources, but overall I see this as a worthwhile topic, and a fitting addition to Category:Death customs. --Elonka 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -it can be expanded into an article of much more notability. Subject merits an article. CattleGirl talk | e@ 10:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g12, copyright violation. NawlinWiki 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wankum[edit]

Conflict of Interest / SPA created the article, appears autobiographical & like a resume, further may not meet notability criteria SkerHawx 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Noted and corrected - thx. SkerHawx 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adamson Military Band[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable brass band. Band website mentions no competitive awards and performances consist mainly of weddings and fetes Nuttah68 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — google kicks out about 90s hits, fails WP:NOTABILITY and is not sourced. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable local marching band. NawlinWiki 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. SPA's, anons, newbies ignored. Xoloz 14:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeseweb[edit]

This is about a website that has relatively little going for it. A much larger gaming website got deleted which was much more well known than this site, so it seems very unlikely this should be here, and the other not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KainT40k (talk • contribs) 25 October.

Possible single purpose account, probably WP:POINT action related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Counsil. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page does not cite references for the history of the site (with the exception of the Ezine) and is also describing a freewebs page. If there was a wikipedia page for all such sites, then we could potentially be flooded by pages of information of little use to anyone. This site already has a mention in the Games Workshop Online community page I believe, maybe some if it could be merged into that. The page as it stands is of little use to anyone, and to me seems more of an advertisement than anything else. - tom ash
    User second edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would you mind citing the larger gaming site so I can judge myself?
Anyway; This page did have history of the site, and if it doesn't now, it has been due to hacking problems. I will rectify the article if it would improve the situation. I understand your comment about many sites could have a page like this, but CW is a growing site, and having run a successful campaign with another site, the DC, and having a running E-zine onto it's 7th issue next month, it, in my opinion, deserves an article.
Another point I'd like to make, is that IMHO, you are putting our article up for deletion because either A) TLA does not have an article, and you see this as competition, which you shouldn't; we are smaller. Or, B) TLA does have an article, and same as point A.
Remember that Wiki is a free Encyclopedia for all, and just because you think we don't need an article, doesn't mean we can't have one. Elegost 25 October.
  • Keep It also sounds to me that this is a matter of publicity. Cheeseweb have been mentioned in several publications including Battle Games in Middle Earth and White Dwarf, and the occassional gamer looking for details of the forum may stumble across Wikipedia, and then search for it. From this, the neutral can gather that The Last Alliance are jealous that their page has been deleted. Whilst it is true that The Last Alliance is by far the bigger website, the fact it has too been published in White Dwarf with a link, and the fact it is known already across the Games Workshop community shows that it has enough reknown already. This is just childish jealousy; one has their article and the other doesn't so they wat the other gone.

Cheeseweb deserve to keep their's. It is well-written, and features links to other sites. The Last Alliance, on the other hand, do not deserve to keep this, because, out of spite, they have flagged this and several other articles for deletion. Glorfindel1993 18:04, 28 October 2006

  • Keep Well, I think this stems from the fact that the TLA entry was deleted as it wasn't notable or interesting enough. To be honest I feel both articles should be (or should have been) kept, infighting doesn't really help our cause in general. It seems strange though that an article about a website with almost 90 times as many members, that has been running 3 years longer, has won an award, been published in official Games Workshop publications, appeared on radio, has a community that ties in closely with official Games Workshop goings on and that has run 2 campaigns - on a larger scale - is deleted whilst this one is allowed. I reiterate I don't think this article should be deleted, but also the TLA one should be reinstated... ChrisWilliams1000 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the TLA one should not have been deleted; don't get me wrong, TLA is a good site, but I believe that this whole fiasco is just bad blood that we still have one up and TLA doesn't. I don't see The Chamber of Smaug's, The Dark Council's, or The Alliance of Light's articles flagged. Live and let live. Elegost 19:54, 25 October
  • Keep. About the Last Alliance Article, that shouldn't have been deleted; at the time of writing the style was very messy, covering controversies and individual members without citation. I helped ChrisWilliams1000 clean it up, but it was deleted before I could vote for its retention, so I merged as much as I could into Games Workshop Online Community. If this is the problem (as Elegost and ChrisWilliams1000 suggest), it can easily be redrafted and re-proposed for inclusion.
At this time, the Cheeseweb article does give citations and reasons for notability; it is in no need of clean-up and it certainly does not need to be deleted. It was an important tactical base during the War of the Ring Online Campaign. It later ran the Campaign of LoTRs. It has content distributed through e-zines, and has produced Rules Supplements for the game in accordance with [47]. Although TLA has these on a larger scale, it does not mean the CW article should be deleted - merely that the TLA article should be reproposed for inclusion. --Grimhelm 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems that the Last Alliance article was not deleted because of its position, but because it was boring, did not cite its articles, and broke general rules. I for one wouldn’t mind the Last Alliance article being reinstated, but because that article was, forgive me, no good, it does not mean that the Cheeseweb article should be deleted. TLA is definitely more important than Cheeseweb, but it was deleted due to the quality of the article. Aratheking 25 October 2006
Also, trying to vandalise and making up facts that everyone hates the site will not help Kain. This is clear from the editing history of the Cheeseweb article, and it seems he is very bitter about the loss of his article, so he is taking it out on someone else. Also, in your reason for deletion, you fail to cite your forum. This is not going to help you. Aratheking 25 October 2006
  • Keep: The fact that The Last Alliance was deleted is highly unfair. However you have no right to consider Cheeseweb's deletion. It is a fan-site, and has too appeared in publications and a production by a Morayshire DJ. It is talked about in various hobby centres, and holds a great magazine.
I find it hard to grasp - that - just because your paid for, longer running site, was deleted. Doesn't mean to say that smaller communities have to take the outwash of your anger.
If you're unhappy with how Cheeseweb is portrayed, maybe Cheeseweb is the people to contact rather than causing a stir on this website?— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Toulac (talk • contribs)
Comment, user second edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A great site for Lotr fans, and a reason why the TLA article should have been accepted --Brizzi2 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Bro1[reply]
  • What would be better than !voting keep would be adding references to the article to demonstrate this third party, independent media attention. What magazines, what "other media" ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A nice site for gamers and proof that TLA should have been accepted Madusmatus 23:38, 25 October 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.225.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB. This afd discussion seems to have been hijacked by people complaining about another afd Bwithh 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dunno whats is going on, but I have not edited anything, and I'm rather annoyed you say I have. I have no idea what the hell is going on, but I am not a happy camper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KainTLA (talk • contribs) 25 October
    Comment, KainTLA first and only edit. -- ReyBrujo 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This afd should be considered at WP:DRV for semi-protected do-over Bwithh 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I deduce that this will have been mentioned in White Dwarf, but that won't mean that it meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG. I'm not sure that a semi-protected rerun will help. Anyway, doesn't meet any notability guidelines that I can see. Gnews archive search for cheeseweb finds only "The Cheeseweb" [thecheeseweb.com]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Delete not notable, fails WP:WEB and flooded with keep votes from single purpose accounts. Anomo 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese rock (disambiguation)[edit]

I created this dreaded disambiguation page probably a year ago or less before moving from Chinese Rock (disambiguation) to Chinese Rock to Chinese rock (disambiguation) (click here for history. Someone said this page is unnecessary to move it unless there are reasonable circumstances to make it necessary, and I totally agree. Gh87 05:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, speedy G7 if possible. MER-C 11:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's appears to be a valid disambiguation page. I'm not sure what the history of the redirect page linked above has to do with that. -- JHunterJ 13:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No disambiguation needed. --The Crying Orc 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a valid disambiguation page. --Limetom 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 17:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, utterly normal dab page, where's the problem? Sandstein 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JHunterJ. Actually an above-average dab page, in that it follows MoS:DAB closer than most. Xtifr tälk 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monet Dupree[edit]

  • Delete: Looks pretty non-notable. Google search brings up fewer than 800 hits, half of which appear to be Wikipedia and the other half appear to be self-promo. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the above comment. -bobby 19:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears non-notable. Hello32020 19:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Avi 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shy girl[edit]

Fancrufty WP:OR. Danny Lilithborne 18:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge The article would fit better in the characteristics section of the anime article. -bobby 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not that I doubt this archetype exists, but this article provides no sources. -- Whpq 20:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shyness, WP:OR. Sandstein 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Aspdoe 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is too shy to explain why it's an article. Dekimasu 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. It's OR now, but could it be done right? --Masamage 07:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR as it stands now. Dsreyn 12:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. per nom. Anomo 09:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article unclear. Perhaps some information of this article can be re-written into another article. CattleGirl talk | e@ 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of idioms in the English language. Original consensus for deletion, moving later toward a redirect. --MCB 04:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open a can of Whoop Ass[edit]

This article has been listed for proposed deletion. But it has already been deleted via proposed deletion on 2006-05-29 and then re-created on 2006-06-29. (The deleted version can be seen at wikt:Transwiki:Open a can of whoop ass.) This counts as a contested prod.

The reason for deletion given by GassyGuy was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This expression does not have encyclopaedic significance. This article is unsourced, and it's unlikely to find any scholarly sources that discuss anything besides a definition and possibly a mention of its use by a celebrity."

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. By our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) an encyclopaedia article on this subject would properly be at opening a can of whoop-ass. But there's really nothing encyclopaedic to say on the subject of opening cans of whoop-ass. (The actual subject for an encyclopaedia article being fighting.) The fact that both versions of the article contain nothing but random selections of usages of a phrase in films and on television indicate that this really is a mis-placed dictionary article about an idiomatic phrase — giving its meaning, quotations showing it being used, usage notes, and so forth — not an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/place/event/thing denoted by the phrase. Uncle G 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nominator and prior deletion record. -bobby 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4. And that's the bottom line, 'cause Caknuck said so. Caknuck 3:16 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting "Speedy" per danntm. Caknuck 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know if this is speediable, but delete per reasons of my prod and those explained by Uncle G. GassyGuy 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular Delete this is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4, because this was a recreation of an article deleted through PROD. Thus, as Uncle G correctly notes, this is considered a contested PROD, and there is no deletion consensus barring the recreation of this article. However, this is an unreferenced article that keeps close to WP:OR, and has no place in an encyclopedia.-- danntm T C 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My wife game me a can of spicy peanuts with this name, just 3 days ago as it was amusing, originating from Arizona. So there is a thing here not mentioned in the article. This isn't to say that it's a notable product however. Robovski 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm shocked by the deletes here, this is an obviously highly well known term that can be sourced and expanded upon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The place for articles on "terms" (in this case, an idiomatic phrase) is a dictionary. This is an encyclopaedia. For there to be an encyclopaedia article, there has to be a subject. The subject in this case would be opening cans of whoop-ass. To back up your unsubstantiated assertion that an encyclopaedia article on that subject can be sourced, please cite some sources that discuss that subject. That assertion remains unfounded without cited sources. Uncle G 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, for instance, on page 1 of the 78 Google Books hits was The Dictionary of College Slang, which provides a concise, general definition, and then we have six individual pages of usage, ranging from the cultural to the criminal to the arguably academic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But once again, these references are simply usage of the term, and not articles about the term. -- Whpq 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not all of them, and that was off of a quick Google. This can easily be expanded, which is the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jeff, I'm not sure you understood Uncle G's objection. There's a fair amount of material about the term "to open a can of whoop ass". That's good dictionary material, because dictionaries document terms. There doesn't seem to be material about the actual act of "opening cans of whoop ass", which is what an encyclopedia article would have to be about. Based on agreeing that it's an interesting term with a colorful history, one would conclude that it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Or, do you contend that Wikipedia should make like a dictionary, and maintain articles on words and usages? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I understand it. I'm just not as prone to give up on what's essentially a stub when it's clear that it can be expanded to a more useful article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • A useful article on the act of opening cans of whoop-ass, and not on the term and its usage? Wow, what makes it clear to you that this is doable? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Let me put it another, clearer way - if we're using WP:WINAD as a benchmark, I have no concerns regarding the ability of the right editor to improve this past stub status to a useful article within policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Um.... that wasn't clearer, and you really didn't answer my question. Let me ask 2 very direct ones: Do you think the topic of this article should be the act, or the phrase? Do you think it it generally within the purview of an encyclopedia to document English colloquialisms? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • 1) I think there's room for a study of both in this case. 2) I think it can be in this encyclopedia, but I have a grudging acceptance of the consensus that I'm not a part of on the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, so much as just curious where you're coming from. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of those are sources that discuss the subject. The fact that your primary purported source is a dictionary should be raising a big red flag. What you have provided are places to find quotations, showing a phrase in use, and a place where an idiom is attested. The "Encyclopedia for the New American Century" says nothing about the subject at all, for example. (It is actually is discussing violence, as is made clear by the prominent boldface heading of the paragraph.) Quotations and attestation are what Wiktionary wants for an article. Wikipedia wants sources, not quotations. As I said, please cite some sources that discuss this subject to back up the unsubstantiated assertion that an encyclopaedia article on that subject can be sourced. You haven't done so. You haven't even turned up any sources that discuss the phrase (most of which discussion is still dictionary territory), let alone the subject that it denotes — which as I point out again, is fighting. Uncle G 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Improv 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of idioms in the English language, where this term is already listed.--Elonka 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of idioms in the English language per Elonka, which is the most sensible and least obtrusive option. Yamaguchi先生 06:58, 1 November 2006
  • Merge/Redirect per Elonka - this content is already present & does not need its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryman (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 November 2006
  • Merge/Redirect as above - unless the article will be about the above non-notable can on spicy coated peanuts...Robovski 04:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MCB 04:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DEKAF[edit]

Non-notable. Roughly 800 Google hits for "dekaf framework" and roughly 150 for "dekaf web framework". --Moe Aboulkheir 19:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --MCB 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Realms[edit]

definately non-notable. Direct quotes without citations smacks of pure hoax. No sources whatsoever. No way to verify. 100% deletable in my humble opinon boyo. Perfect T 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V, googling for "Hidden Realms" oasis provides no relevant links either. Sandstein 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced and probably unverifiable. Kavadi carrier 08:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even when the meatpuppet/SPA posts are ignored. --MCB 04:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achaia Football Clubs Association[edit]

Delete: Since it is an amature league of a district, lower than greek fourth division, I think this is unimportant article for everyone. KRBN 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: No more, nor less notable than leagues in English football league system (more than 20 levels) or Championnat de France Amateurs 2 (level 5 in France). --FocalPoint 13:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One article being present on Wikipedia is not a precedent for another one to exist; only if it has run an AfD can it be used. Daniel.Bryant 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant number of articles in Wikipedia on amateur, athletic unions operating on other than national level. Not one.--FocalPoint 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rediculus to keep such a league of a village.--Moutalos 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Achaia is not a village, it is a prefecture (the 5th in population among Greek prefectures with 322.789 inhabitants at the 2001 census) - Compare Achaia Football Clubs Association with Comité de Football des Îles du Nord of Saint Martin, 33.102 inhabitants, a Comité no less no more notable.--FocalPoint 08:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To administrators: Please note that Moutalos (talk · contribs) and Agelada (talk · contribs) cannot count as a voting user. If you can, you may compare his their server address with the server address of KRBN (talk · contribs)
Comment This is NOT a vote, administrators decide based on arguments --The Way 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted words, in agreement with the comment of The Way--FocalPoint 08:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we include amateur leagues from the English football league system how can we disregard the amateur leagues of the current European Champions? I think these leagues of both countries should be preserved. Georgeg 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One article being present on Wikipedia is not a precedent for another one to exist; only if it has run an AfD can it be used. Daniel.Bryant 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn’t agree with you more. So, if you’d spent a second to actually follow the link provided (on the English football league system) you would have quickly found out that in fact there are dozens of such amateur minor leagues listed there, not just the one cited. Do you really want me to list them all here?! There’d be no space for anything else! (Or tell me, are dozens of other similar (some would argue even less important) articles not a precedent for this one to exist?) Georgeg 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:--Tony esopi patra 17:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" - please provide a reason, or the closing admin will discount your input.
The input provided by this simple signature indicates that apart from the population of Achaia of 322.789 represented for football purposes by Achaia Football Clubs Association, there are also Wikipedia real users and contributors who care about this article.--FocalPoint 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: --Nakos2208 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" - please provide a reason, or the closing admin will discount your input.
The input provided by this simple signature indicates that apart from the population of Achaia of 322.789 represented for football purposes by Achaia Football Clubs Association, there are also Wikipedia real users and contributors who care about this article.--FocalPoint 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is in between wikipedia's perspectives --Kalogeropoulos 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons User:FocalPoint gives--Archidamus 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) (I saw now it's not a vote, so I can participate)--Archidamus 16:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One article being present on Wikipedia is not a precedent for another one to exist; only if it has run an AfD can it be used. Daniel.Bryant 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is very much so relevant.

Keep: Agree with FocalPoint. Not less notable than other existing articles about amateur football clubs or leagues. --Dada 19:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When improved and expanded, the article will contain information about the association and will be verifiable and neutral. Can you quote one key policy that is being violated? The only argument for it's deletion is notability and it is not always so trivial to decide what is important or not. Why should we consider the Bristol Downs Football League article more notable? According to your arguments, only 400,000 people who live there would care about it. And why is Devon and Exeter Football League more important? Note that this article is very much just a list. And what do you think about Stroud and District League? The same arguments you use here apply to all these articles and if you honestly think that Achaia Football Clubs Association is non notable, then IMHO you should seriously reconsider the status of the other articles I mentioned. --Dada 09:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing how so many users could find this before it was listed on the main page. T REXspeak 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the kind of knowledge you can't find anywhere else. It's information that can be proved useful in many ways especially historically. Like it wastes server space or something???? --Alexignatiou 21:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please quote which Wikipedia policy indicates it is worthy of inclusion, rather than your own personal opinion on the article.
  • Delete Article is incoherent. It seems to be about an amateur league - seems unimportant in the context of Greek football. Catchpole 22:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a list of champions of this minor league. It had little to no effect on Greek football in general and has done nothing notable by itself to warrant an article. T REXspeak 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article isn't even what it purports to be, as Dinosaur noted it's basically an incomplete list of chamions associated with the league. Not informative at all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate place for information. --The Way 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Keep, but RewriteI've changed my mind regarding this. The article is no less relevant than other football clubs that have articles and we always must work to fight systemic bias, so it should stay. However, the format it is currently in is terrible; its still just a list of champions with almost no prose. The lists need to be cut down or removed and the article needs to be modeled after other football club articles; it needs to consist mostly in prose. --The Way 09:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it just me, or is there something up with some of the people voting for keep? None are applying the normal format (with an asterik) and many offer no arguments... --The Way 06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They all seem to be from the Greek Wikipedia. T REXspeak 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note on comment: Many = 2 . Is it just me, or is there something up with NewMathematics as taught by The Way?--FocalPoint 08:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you have observed only Greeks support that article. Others find it rediculous. Not any other. It is so USELESS ARTICLE. --Agelada 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is interesting to go to see User talk:Georgeg because really it is suprizing for those who don't know why there are so many Greeks.

--KRBN 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Take a look at:

--KRBN 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC

Well this is really funny coming from you who wrote "you could help and bring more people to vote DELETE" in User_talk:The_Way? --Dada 10:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If i am not mistaken, anyone with 50+ edits has the right to vote, so comments on the ethnicity of the people who vote are really irrelevant. Besides, it is only natural for Greeks to vote, since they know better what the article is about. The only reason for deletion is it's notability (certainly the content needs serious improvement too but this is not our issue here), however the basic argument against it is that there already exist similar articles about amateur or very low-level clubs/leagues. Please let people decide without commenting on or attacking the voters and if any vote is illegal then it simply won't be counted. --Dada 14:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some people should get a life. Who would you expect to have an opinion on an article about greek amateur football, Hungarian housewives or Chinese schoolkids? What's wrong with greek Wikipedians voting with arguments (right or wrong, doesn't matter) on the deletion of a Greece-related article? User:Daniel.Bryant, I think you should have stayed longer on your vacation, you would have done us all a favour if you came back sometime in late 2008. Sockpuppetry is a quite serious accusation. If that's your way of discussing, be my guest, I don't get easily insulted by such know-it-alls, but having to take the time to answer to such nonsense can be a nuisance--Archidamus 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you should read what I wrote - there's a difference between meatpuppets and sockpuppets. If you don't stop, it'll be you who won't be coming back to Wikipedia for a while - I'm not sure about the Greek Wiki, where all the meatpuppets came from, but on the English Wiki we strongly enforce a high level of civility. What you said could also be deemed a personal attack, and I will have no qualms in having you blocked if you keep it up. Consider this your final warning. Daniel.Bryant 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edit conflict, but please stay civil. T REXspeak 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Meatpuppets: "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion" You have actually openly accused us of having created our accounts to vote for this article. In my eyes this is quite uncivil and defamatory, especially in the way did it (generalising, no specific names mentioned, addressing all users). If you are so addicted to such behaviour that you can't see its insulting nature, what can I say, you could reconsider your debate tactics. User:Dinosaur puppy thank you for your timely concern on the civility of the discussion. It seems our definitions of civility don't overlap--Archidamus 05:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please check if the users, whom Daniel personally attacks are meatpuppets. Then check the few entries of Moutalos (talk · contribs) and Agelada (talk · contribs), in comparison with entries by KRBN (talk · contribs). Then please take the appropriate action, by tagging them etc.--FocalPoint 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is so unimportant article. It has to do with a minor amature league of a district, even lower than Greek Fourth Division, where teams play in very bad stadium, and the teams are so weak. It does really not affect Greek football and I doubt even if that could be in a Greek encyclopedia (except wikipedia). So unimportant that doesn't cause the interest even of Greek fans and media. Nobody in the world will care about such an article. If such an article is accepted, I wonder what is not in wikipedia.

Also as we saw, so unimportant it is that ONLY GREEKS SUPPORT IT. The fact that is not accepted by the rest of the world, speaks everything. If Greeks want it so much, why they don't write it for their own in Greek wikipedia and want it here where nobody wants it, except them? Their opinion I think is too subjective. One proof of that that some of them called everyone who is Greek to save the article. One thing that proves the aim of them is that they called me anti-Greek because I proposed it for deletion. Their goal is pariotic rather than helping contribution in wikipedia.

  • Comment:For User:Archidamus As for the claim that Greeks know better the article, I know better my self. Does that mean that I have to write my personal biograph in wikipedia? KRBN 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is totally different. It is not a case of self promotion and no one will gain anything if the article stays. It is about an association of football clubs, member of the Hellenic Football Federation and their amateur league. --Dada 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoa now, this is beginning to take on a somewhat racist tone. Wikipedia is actively working to promote systemic bias which means we should include things important to different countries, not only things important to the US and UK. KRBN, please tone down this inappropriate rhetoric. The problem with the article is NOT that it's Greek, rather its that it's merely a list and the title misrepresents whats located within. If the article was changed to fit the format of the British football clubs, for example, I'd support keeping it. --The Way 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: (with some modifications, to keep everyone happy!)
  1. if amateur leagues are to have a presence at all on Wikipedia this league has a record of representing Greece in the UEFA_Regions_Cup (this is UEFA's top amateur competition and only one team composed of players from one amateur domestic league can qualify - Achaia won the Greek spot by eliminating the collective team of other amateur Greek leagues) in 2005. ([48]). There are leagues in the English football league system that have not achieved this but have been accepted. There has been a similar discussion on English low level teams here: [[49]]
  2. the league itself has been around for nearly 80 years, and teams such as Panachaiki who have won this league several times in the past have moved on and played in Greece’s A1 Ethniki, contributing players to the national team (hence the league has an element of historical significance too)
However, I think individual teams within this league should not necessarily have their own wiki entry (ie just for having participated in the league itself), unless of course they have demonstrated other notability criteria (like Panachaiki). So I propose that the red links should be deleted.
I also agree with User:The Way’s comment in that the format could be changed to resemble that of the English football league system. Finally it would be nice if the article contained more information, but judging by the interest this discussion has generated, that should hopefully come pretty soon! StephP 12:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, this process is working. I have already put in the information that StephP has taken the trouble to find (and some more). I understand StephP's desire to remove links, I would not get into the trouble. In my opinion red links are OK, even if they should better stay red for a very very very long time (no objection there). I understand the impression of The Way's of the long list. It is a bit boring, but it is the FCA's history: The scope of playing is winning, winners should be noted (rather than a factual but ultraboring list of all teams participating in the FCA). It also shows Panachaiki's history (an FC of national level Greek football). And...yes...the article was really ugly, but this was a question of notability as pointed out by several wikipedians who participated in this discussion, not a beauty contest.--FocalPoint 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, I owe an honest thank you to the original author of the article, Tony esopi patra as well as KRBN: Despite the latter's poor arguments, bad manners, questionable practices and serious misunderstanding of wikipedia's actual and desired content, during this discussion I have learned better the deletion process, the term meatpuppet, that trawling for votes/opinions can be seen as spam or vandalism and I have identified the process for reporting editing abuse (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets). I might even try it too.--FocalPoint 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: i totally agree with focal point and with tony esopi.I also believe that the article is very useful and necessary for wikipedia.--SAPIOPIS 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Note to admins: user SAPIOPIS (talk · contribs) has only 2 contributions and all of them here. Note to participating users: please try not to engage in personal comments and counting of who's opinion attracts the more sockpuppets. This is a matter of the administrators. Try to argue on a factual basis about the article. --150.140.215.24 16:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I cannot understand why it should be so complicated. Some people can find information in this article. This information is difficult to be found anywhere else on the internet and will definitely be useful to some (not only for people living in Greece). --CeeKay 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: League has been around for over 80 years, has had some notable teams playing it and represents a fairly large amount of players and teams. Furthermore, it probably has a fairly large amount of fans who watch this league, even if just a couple of hundred fans from each team watch these matches it all adds up. Englishrose 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAfter reviewing it in my own mind, I see how 80 years would be noteworthy.Billy i.e.The Billster 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Billy i.e.The Billster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep WP not paper. Article non-controversial, not that bad, why shouldn't we just let it be? •NikoSilver• 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being an amateur league does not automatically mean it's "not notable" (if it did, we'd delete every Olympic Games and Rugby Union article from the first half of the 20th century). The UEFA Regions' Cup competition is notable, in my opinion. Demiurge 00:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the 1950s, this tournament was of a high enough standard to give its champions a chance to qualify for the national championship of Greece. [50] Fairly vital part of football history in a region of a population with 320,000. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Articles about league structures and histories, be they below professional leagues, are considerred notable in most countries so I see no reason why Greece should be any different. Furthermore, the article has quite a decent amount of decent encyclopedic content in it so I believe that is should remain. -- MLD · T · C · @:  14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep: I'm from Greece and believe that Achaia Football Clubs Association article must be kept as many clubs participating in the Association are important --Noumenorian 21:01, 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 keep, bad faith nom. JYolkowski // talk 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bainbridge Northern Railway[edit]

This railway is completely non-notable and has no references! House Centipede 04:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and let grow. Historic rail companies/lines are notable. Added TrainsWikiProject stamp to talk page. --Marriedtofilm 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a stub and stubs are short by nature. WP:TWP is working toward building the most comprehensive coverage of rail transport possible, and this will include quite a number of minor lines that have existed in the past. Slambo (Speak) 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the nominator's contributions, I see a lot of edits that would be considered vandalism and that have been reverted as such. Slambo (Speak) 19:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbert Blakeden[edit]

not notable Thegn 08:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Does not seem to meet the notability standards of WP:BIO, at least as best as I can apply those standards to a 16th Century "sarjant"(?). -- Satori Son 05:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Serjeant of the Confectionary was the chief officer of the royal confectionary, which prepared the King's desserts. Interesting, but I hardly think individual holders rise to the level of notability. Choess 18:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game Show Closing Lines[edit]

Doesn't fit into wikipedia. Unencyclopedic useless, and unhelpful information. M8v2 22:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It isn't really important.--SUIT42 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic ultratrivia listcruft Bwithh 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Priceless! Fg2 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I found the content interesting, but it's ultimately just trivia. Danny Lilithborne 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikiquote. CrossEyed7 15:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into the various articles on the shows and/or hosts. While this is far from the most vital article on WP, many of these became catchprases in their own right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge contents into articles mentioned. Is not written as an encyclopedic article, is not notable of one. No actual articles link to it. CattleGirl talk | e@ 10:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone is looking for "what show had that closing line?", it could be useful. A person certainly would save a lot of time and effort that would otherwise go to looking through individual game show articles one by one. KrakatoaKatie 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grote[edit]

  • DELETE - notability issue....search brings up blogs and personal websites and resumes. 4.18GB 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This "article" is so poorly written that it is unintelligible. The information included is only that which would be listed on a personal resume for a job-seeker-- a job-seeker who happens to be particularly unskilled or highly careless at writing resumes. There is an assertion of notability, but there is no way that we can verify any of the information through reliable 3rd party sources. In short, this isn't an article. It's just a mess. OfficeGirl 08:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. —Cryptic 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Boothe[edit]

Not notable Thegn 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to John Wilkes Booth, the person in the article is not a notable historical figure. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect or simply redirect per Danny. Also, could someone refer me to the guideline/policy/section of the GFDL which speaks to "delete and redirect"? I've heard it's prohibited (maybe I'm thinking of "merge and delete"). I can't remember where it's mentioned. Thanks.--Kchase T 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not prohibited by anything. Merge and delete isn't technically prohibited, either, but it's discouraged because the GFDL requires us to preserve article history, and redirecting is far and away the simplest way to do that. —Cryptic 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M Shanmugavel[edit]

this is a non notable journalist, the same as any other with no distingushing accomplishments House Centipede 05:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad-faith nomination made by a vandal who is now blocked. --Marriedtofilm 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wilberforce[edit]

This is a nomination for Mark Wilberforce

He is a football player for Scarborough, in the Conference North, which is not a fully professional league. Therefore, the player fails our biography guidelines for sports-people, which requires playing in a fully professional league as a minimum, something this players has never done. --Chappy84 09:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, 1st one I'd done and only scanned instructions, didn't read fully, thanks for completing it.
  • Delete - per above. Catchpole 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no professional experience. Pre-season friendlies and reserve team fixtures don't count ChrisTheDude 07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO makes the point about being in the squad for a "professional league" as a claim for notability extremely clear. Therefore, by virtue, those who don't reach this level are non-notable. Daniel.Bryant 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no appearances for the Leeds first team. NawlinWiki 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if he played for Leeds United it would be a keep but he didn't so delete. Kingjamie 20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above WikiGull 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Avi 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Daily Lines[edit]

Article being brought to AfD after discussion on talk page regarding speedy deletion. While I feel this article may be unencyclopedic, I am posting this to get a wider audience to review for deletion and wish to stay Neutral for this debate. Wildthing61476 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps it is not so much the article itself that is inapropriate, but rather the title. If it was changed to current NHL team roster and lines or something along those lines would that be more appropriate? I am going to move this page to: NHL: Current Rosters and Lines as soon as I can, unless that is a bad idea. --Madmarvin44 16:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Completed.[reply]

In the interest of having comprehensive and current information about a topic like hockey, I think this article is relevant and should not be deleted. However, I do agree with the name change suggested above.--70.16.35.252 19:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It changes too much is a problem but i will still say keep ThunderGold 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm a huge hockey fan, and I can tell you that lines change very frequently- as often as several times per game. Usually, only one or two lines are ever stable for a reasonable part of the season, and more often than not, it's only two players that stay together (ie Joe Thornton and Jonathan Cheechoo), with the third being rotated. The list will be unmaintanable, and in some cases, unverifiable because the lines are fluid throughout the entire game (particularly in the playoffs). As it stands, each team's page already has its current roster listed, so I see no need to have this article. Let me just sum it up this way: even if this page exists, it will almost never be accurate. --Wafulz 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any sport, whether it be basketball, football, baseball, or hockey, teams have set starters and moderately set depth charts. Prior to each hockey game the teams announcers will usually describe the starting lines of the team they are covering, and in some cases the opponents as well. This page is set up to document what teams are using as their current starting lines, rosters and rotations. As in any sport, injuries and other factors will change positions and combinations of players on the ice, field, court or whatever during the course of a game. The purpose of this page is not to track those changes, but rather to state what the current status of the team is, and what the current depth chart of the team is, as far as can be known. Obviously coaches make decisions before during and after the game the effects the information on this page, however those changes do not invalidate the information at one state - for example, starting lines in the last game were X is still a valid fact even if 4 people got injured in the game and the lines got mixed up. The next updated entry would have to show this new information as it becomes available, and probably should be documented when the lines are described. This is not news, but rather is a snapshot of the current and most recently known state of the team, information that I feel is encyclopedic and is not at all indiscriminate. There are other websites out there that can track the change of lines throughout the game, but this page is meant to be a reference as to the last best known lines and rosters for each of the teams in the NHL. Like any page in the wiki, it is only as good as its last update, and with the dynamic nature of lines in the NHL, those updates need to come fairly often. --Madmarvin44 18:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as it's kept up to date (will be a neverending job), I find this article quite useful. That's my two cents. --RiverHockey
  • Keep on one condition: It is reorganized as a depth chart, based on reliable sources rather than as current lines, as the present scope is completely unmaintainable. Any individual player could be shifted up or down a line at any given time, but that usually does not change who is considered the #1 right wing, #2, etc. The article does have potential, however. Resolute 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Resolute. Spy1986 12:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I like the idea, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. Lines change from game to game, and even within a game, as do scratches, starting goalies, etc. Right now it reads like a news story or box score of the last game rather than an encyclopedia article. If it could be fixed somehow to make it more encyclopedic, I'd change my vote - but I don't see a way to do that, so I'll vote delete. --TheOtherBob 17:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheOtherBob. Kavadi carrier 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheOtherBob as well. It looks cool and all, but Wikipedia probably isn't the place for something like this. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wafulz and TheOtherBob. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. --MCB 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAEEK[edit]

  • It is A third division football club in Cyprus, so there non notability about this club. KRBN 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I beg to differ on your opinion on this club, for the following reasons:
  1. PAEEK has a basketball division that has won the Cyprus top league on 3 occasions (See article for reference).
  2. Through its local basketball success it has qualified on several occasions in European competitions (see article for reference).
  3. If we model our coverage of the Cyprus football league system on the (so far more developed) article covering the English football league system this is a team in level 3 football (as indicated by KRBN above). It certainly is more notable than teams such as Cowes Sports F.C. which plays amateur football in level 17 Isle of Wight Saturday Football League (3rd division)!!! Or how about the Staveley Miners Welfare F.C. who play in the Wakefield and District League. Both these teams have accepted Wiki articles and so do 100’s of other less notable clubs. So, are we saying that as this team comes from a small country hence it is not notable?
  • The Cowes Sports "A" Team play in the Isle of Wight League. That's their 3rd XI (after the First Team and the Reserve Team). You'd expect the 3rd XI to play at a significantly lower level than the first team, and in this instance they play eight levels lower.... ChrisTheDude 20:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I feel your point strengthens the argument of keeping PAEEK even further. If all three teams in Cowes Sports F.C.’s pecking order are included, the bottom at 17th level (the one identified by the links above) and the top at 9th level surely a team with PAEEK’s background (I won't repeat facts here) deserves a presence! StephP 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never said they didn't, all I was pointing out was the actual level at which Cowes Sports play (BTW their 3rds play at level 15, not 17, as they are in the IOW League Division 1, not 3 as quoted above).... ChrisTheDude 15:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is becoming cumbersome and might be beyond the scope of this discussion page. However, wikipedia claims that one team of Cowies FC, be it 2nd 3rd 4th or whatever pecking order plays in the 17th level. Why don’t you just check it out here for yourself: English football league system It’s in black and white. The point GeorgeG illustrates is that Cowies FC play in quite a low league, be it the 9th, 15th or 17th. I don’t think anyone here is too concerned which of Cowies FC’s multiple teams plays in which league (maybe in this case it is the Cowes FC Old Boys), however as is, one of their teams is listed in the 17th level. I suggest you went and amended the page on the English football league system if you think the information there is wrong. And if you want to genuinely contribute in a constructive manner to this page, please add your opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted, (as this it the topic of discussion here). I am not trying to be rude or pedantic but I honestly think we are digressing from the essence. StephP 15:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Furthermore, this is a team that has played top flight football in the past (will we be deleting Chelsea FC in 10 years time if they fell to the 3rd division of the EPL?)
This is a historic club that is a household name in Cyprus. The only argument I see in deleting this article would be the fact that it comes from a small country, which in my books is a weak thesis. I would argue that on the basis of point 3 (above) alone, teams that belong to even lower divisions of the Cyprus football league system deserve to be included.
Further note: KRBN, you have interfered in a negative manner with this article twice in the past (first by erasing and redirecting the whole article to Kyrenia on the 4th of August 2006, which is inappropriate, and secondly by proposing its speedy deletion). I also note from your discussion pages that you have made a habit of such actions, most of which are overturned. I strongly suggest you try and do more reading before hastily tagging articles in the future.Georgeg 09:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that has participated in European Cups in many years ago it does not make them notable club, since they did not go furthure but just participated as representer of Cyprus.
Do not compare Cypriot and English football league. Their difference is huge. Also there is global interest even for low divisions of English league. Don't forget also that is an english wikipedia. So english teams are in different case. If it was in Greek wikipedia, there would be no problem for me. I don't suppose teams from lower level of Cyprus deserve to be included because of the level of Cyprus.
As for Chelsea, it is a historical club in England (famous in England and Cyprus not the same) with plenty of trophies, and great success in European Cups.
Also a not PAEEK has NEVER participated in Cypriot First Division.
KRBN 25 October 2006 16:37 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rediculus to keep such a club of third division of a weak country.--Moutalos 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To administrators: Please note that Moutalos (talk · contribs) cannot count as a voting user. If you can, you may compare his server address with the server address of User:KRBN
  • Keep: My second entry (mainly in reply to KRBN’s last entry):
  1. To clarify this KRBN, you are now arguing that an English amateur league team (17th division) should be included, whilst a Cypriot 3rd division team should be excluded on the basis of this being the Wikipedia version in the English language! I find this a ludicrous argument, not to be found in any Wikipedia guidelines. Had you read the guidelines, you would find that in the English Wikipedia there is no positive discrimination for clubs originating in English speaking countries.
  2. Believe me, there is no international interest in the third division of the Isle of White Amateur league.
  3. THREE basketball titles of the top division (first or premiership or call it whatever you like) and FIVE Basketball Cup finals are not enough???? (All these claims are cross-referenced for verification in the article itself)
  4. European participation in the past decade can hardly be considered ancient.Georgeg 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:--Tony esopi patra 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - As noted above, the club has a basketball team as well that has won 3 national titles. [51] This makes it indisputably notable. The football team isn't even detailed in the article, just referenced in a single sentence, so I do not understand the nominator's motivations. Qwghlm 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please elaborate further as simple keep or delete suggestions in the absence of arguments don't hold much weight.StephP 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject, horrible article. EVula 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a league table dating back to 1990-91 showing them in the 3rd division, so playing in a national league, and a reasonable amount of longevity - definite keep. - fchd 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EVula, needs a major overhaul. T REXspeak 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As notable subject and within wikipedia's perspectives--Kalogeropoulos 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please elaborate further as simple keep or delete suggestions in the absence of arguments don't hold much weight.StephP 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is Wiki is an introspective Anglo-centric collection of what Brits and Americans deem important? The article needs a tidy-up, but the team and its article can stay. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable as they've been as high as the 3rd Divison, they've won basketball titles. However, needs a rewrite/cleanup. Englishrose 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 03:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Callaghan[edit]

  • DELETE Other than a review by the NY Times...I have a notability issue. The author says that she is respected in the industry - fine..but on a national/world scale, we have not seen this yet. just my 2c 4.18GB 12:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Szczecin-Drzetowo[edit]

This suburb is not notable in the least and hasn't got any references. House Centipede 04:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This AfD was nominated by a vandal who is now blocked. --Marriedtofilm 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep We have an article on Belgian Gotem. This Polish suburb is about 30 times more populous. The reference info is not correct, as there is a reference on Szczecin-Drzetowo-Grabowo. And indeed, the nominator is someone who keeps experimenting with Wikipedia and has just been blocked. --Pan Gerwazy 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Pan Gerwazy. Edward Wakelin 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Bastards[edit]

Non-noteable series of home-movies by non-noteable director. A Google search for "'The Little Bastards' movie" offers 54,100 links, none of which refer to the work in the article. If you narrow the search to "'The Little Bastards' 'Ryan Ermacora'", using the name of the director, the only link to appear is the Wikipedia article. Consequentially 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MG Club of Greece[edit]

Non notable car owners club; promotion for newly-created organization, no notability claim. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 20:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Brian. -bobby 20:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It seems like an advertisement.--SUIT42 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: It is no advertisement as nothing is sold by the organization.Perry Gogas 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no notability asserted, so tagged, also per {{db-spam}}. Selling a product is not a prerequisite for advertising. Sandstein 23:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bauming[edit]

The subject thinks the existence of the article somehow makes it hard for him to be taken seriously in his business Felisse 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE It's borderline, but I'm going to say that very little of this person's life was verifiable to me. He's obviously trying hard to live a private life, and the only really notable verifiable fact was one grant for a cartoon feature. Not sufficiently notable/not verifiable living person biography.Felisse 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Borderline notable only. Kavadi carrier 08:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Only 20 unique Ghits and there's not a single reference. Too obscure for Wikipedia. KrakatoaKatie 03:56, 5 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 — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (subculture)[edit]

This is a terrible article about an alleged subculture, which is actually just a flattering name for 'trendiness'. I culled a vast chunk of original research from the article (which I can testify from personal experience is a load of crap: metal has not 'stagnated' with 'nu-metal' which isn't actually metal), and truth be told the 'criticism' section is original research too, although largely valid. What is left, then, is a definition which largely mirror that found in the 'urban dictionary'. There have not, as far as I can see from Google, been sociological studies of 'scene' as there have of goth, punk, metal, etc. In short, this is not a verifiable topic, it is probably just a slang word of a particular sort of trendiness, and hence not a valid subject for an encyclopedia article, belonging more properly to a dictionary The Crying Orc 21:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I believe it's complete nonsense.--SUIT42 21:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. -bobby 21:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it is used a lot where I live, it's not a subculture, it's just slang for trendiness. -Amarkov babble 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reverted back to a more encyclopedic Feb 06 version Paul foord 12:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'newer' version is indeed more encyclopedic: less POV about trendy 'emo' 'fashioncore' nonsense. Only, it is, as it stands, largely a pointless fork of the subculture article: while there is a semantic difference between the words 'scene' and the word 'subculture' (e.g. "I am part of the metal subculture but the metal scene is slowly dying"), clearing up this semantic difference is a job for the dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The Crying Orc 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have merged the content to Youth subculture Paul foord 10:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you guys that want to delete it don't really know what sence is, I often hang out with scene kids...most of mty friends are scene, so I say keep it. jwlx 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not per above. Haha. Scene is parlance of our times. Slickshoes3234 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stop going all wiki-elite and deleting everything you, personally, don't observe, just because you don't, doesn't mean no one else does.
  • Keep this is just as valid of a youth subculture as "gangster" or "skinhead" or anything else is. 75.11.191.3
  • Keep A term used to describe the current trend of social integration in youths. We do have pages on specific trends, its why we cover Mod era and punk. "Scene" is very much a real thing and the fact the original nomination suggests a "cull" before it was nom'd means this is not the proper article, simply a bastardised one intended to weaken supporters cause.--I'll bring the food 22:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVISE"Scene" should definately be in Wikipedia, but there's so much more to the subculture than is in this article. The Scene is a huge part of the 15+ generation. It's not well-written and not very explanatory for people that haven't come in contact either with the scene or individual's within it/
  • Keep Scene is so important to understanding this generation. Let's revise this in an intelligent and scientific (if possible) manner. This is an encyclopedia, let's be adults about this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn.

Please note that this close may be very slightly out of process, as Wikipedia:Deletion process does not explicitly state that a non-admin may close a nomination withdrawn by someone other than themselves. However, seeing as it does state you may close your own withdrawals, I believe this action will not draw any controversy. --tjstrf 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians in popular culture[edit]

Not notable Keithmahoney 21:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a proper reason for deletion. A list cannot be "not notable," that doesn't make sense. By the way, I suspect this is related to this Fark story today. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful list which shows the many ways in which librarians are depicted in popular culture, both with and against prevailing stereotypes. Getting mocked by FARK isn't a good enough reason to nuke an article. ObtuseAngle 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand now, that makes sense. I withdraw my nomination if that's possible. Keithmahoney 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Habiru. KrakatoaKatie 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habiru/Sources[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article, but a sources subpage in the main namespace. It also has several comments by users for each particular source. I don't know whether it should be deleted, merged with the parent article, or userfied. Khatru2 21:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, the content seems to be worthwhile critical commentary on the sources used. It should be kept if the editors want it but clearly not in mainspace.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salient information into the reference section at Habiru (which currently only has 1 source listed). Delete the rest. Kafziel Talk 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 No P in the OOL. NawlinWiki 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Op. No "P" in the OOL[edit]

Article already exists: No P in the OOL --Benwildeboer 21:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright. I came to this when I clicked on the episode list and it said the article did not exist. The other article was labeled wrong. Why don't we merge them together? Black Kat 14:54 25 October, 2006. (UTC)

Redirect Other pages link here and this is the correct name for the episode, so it should redirect to the other. Black Kat 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No P in the OOL. Squirepants101 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locksport[edit]

Sourced only to its own website, no verifiable sources or indications of notability. NawlinWiki 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It doesn't really add much.--SUIT42 21:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real Sport, I don't understand the problem. Please tell me more.Jeff503 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lock picking then Redirect. "Locksport" is a neologism.--Húsönd 22:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RS.--Húsönd 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree to that, it seems the best. LS is neoligism Jeff503 23:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article should not be merged. The distinction between lock picking and Locksport is simple, lock picking involves the process while LS is the community and organizations surrounding the art these are very clearly two different things. -What? 07:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) — What aka Kevin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Rubbish. "Locksport" in this context is the name promoted by a single small organization via a single web site. There is zero evidence that "Locksport" as a name for lock picking as a sport has become accepted by the world at large outside of its promoters and coiners. In any case, anything to do with lock picking as a sport belongs in lock picking. Indeed, there is already discussion in that article about lock picking championships.

      The only things that are in fact widely known as "Locksport" are an 1837 boomtown in Ohio sourcesource that is now known as Lockington, a place in Louisiana where there is a shipyard source, and a place in New York source. Uncle G 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wait until Saturday, there is an upcoming news article in a major US based news medium. It is an article regarding lock picking, AND LockSport then the term will be fairly widespread. There is a reference of the article Here.-What? 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Prejudice If it happens like What? says, then maybe re-add. Danny Lilithborne 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Locksport is legitimate. I, and many other people, will be attending the annual Dutch Open in holland this November, as covered by wired magazine in 2004. There IS a distinction between locksport and lockpicking. Honestly? It's weird, that's true, but it's a legitimate sport, and not one endorsed by a single website. Please reference SSDEV, the german locksport group, TOOOL, the group in the netherlands, TOOOL US, (in america, of course) and LSI, (Locksport International) developed in Canada and operating throught North America. 20:55, 26 October 2006 User:SchuylerTowne — SchuylerTowne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Neither TOOOL nor SSDEV make any mention of "locksport", and "Locksport International" is the single small organization mentioned above. As I said, there's zero evidence that "Locksport" as a name for lock picking as a sport has become accepted by the world at large outside of its promoters and coiners. Uncle G 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • More evidence of the term being valid: Lock Picking for Sport Cracks the MainstreamWhat_aka_Kevin 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a distinction between lock picking and locksport in the same way that there is a distinction between driving and racing. One is the mundane act, and the other is the competitive alter ego. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand. --Omikron 02:54, 27 October 2006 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.107.42 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-27 07:55:18 — 12.216.107.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • No-one has stated a problem understanding it. The problem is that it simply isn't the case, as far as the world outside of the coiners and promoters of the idea is concerned. There's zero evidence that the rest of the world has acknowledged this distinction and the protologism coined to name it, as already pointed out. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 11:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "lock sports" was used by ABC in the aforementioned article that is about lock picking as a sport. I believe this is a valid secondary source.
Note This was 66.44.249.157's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locksport is a term much older than the aforementioned Locksport International. See as reference the Yahoo Group Locksports which started in 2002. It is also noteworthy that the single largest online community of enthusiasts, Lockpicking101.com, have widely adopted the term to represent the hobby. As well, consider that locksport encompasses much more than simple lock picking. - Josh Nekrep, 12:16 PM (CST), October 27, 2006
Note This was 142.161.191.84's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The arguments for deletion are baseless. The users making these comments, although very knowledgeable of wiki, lack any knowledge of Locksport, hobby lock picking or any notion of the sport there of. The term, although still in its infancy, is becoming a wide spread one. McClain’s Magazine have done an article, DefCon has a Locksport portion to its convention, as is the Dutch Open. The ability to define the difference between the act of lock picking and the sport seems to be incomprehensible by some.UWSDWF 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note This was UWSDWF's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional "Locksport" references. Marc Tobias, Author of Locks Safes And Security, refers to LockSport in a recent article on bumping: www.security.org/bumping_040206.pdf Also, there are the "LockSport archives. Rather than hold so desperately to the old, or largely accepted, why not embrace the emergance of a new word and young community? 14:38, 27 October 2006 (EST) --User:SchuylerTowne
    • I was just reading up on all of the AfD stuff, and reading up on Wikipedia in general. I apologize for not doing this before, but I will happily make it clear that I am on the board of directors of The Open Organisation Of Lockpickers, US branch. I'm also a proud member of the locksport community as a whole. Again, I'm sorry I didn't disclose that before, but I was just reading up on the process now, and I hope this can be seen as an act of good faith on the part of a member with few other posts. (I'm concerned that making some sort of winking, smiling face may, in fact, create some bit of executed code, so just know that I said that with a grin) I'm off to find other parts of the wikiverse that I've some expertise in. Hopefully we'll see a resolution to this issue soon, and hopefully I won't see myself and my peers alienated from this very interesting community. As someone else mentioned (an older wiki user than I) we're not trying to sell anything, we just thought we'd say "hello" with an article about our own community, I think this march to deletion surprised a lot of us. SchuylerTowne 15:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (I'm trying the tilde thing, let's see if it works)[reply]
  • WSJ article can be seen(partialy, i am not a subscriber) Here it is the

fifth story on the "PAGE ONE" section. What_aka_Kevin 04:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it is also worth considering that there is currently no wiki entry which describes the recreational side of locks, lock picking, bumping, or any such topic. The Lock PIcking page represents a technical representation of the physical act of picking a lock, but offers little information that there even exists a wide base of hobbyists. I can see no reason why a legitimate hobby, with a name for that hobby coined by and adopted by those who participate, should not be allowed to be described on a wiki page. Before removing this entry, serious though should be given to how wiki should describe the hobby/sport. - Josh Nekrep 17:45, October 28 2006
  • Keep. This is a specialised field, users with little to no knowledge of it should not make conclusions based on misguided ideas. -Gerald -- Alveo 03:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a useful enough article, and isn't trying to sell a product, thus does not fall under the spam policy. Jtrainor 10:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep this! It's a valuable addition to Wikipedia, and the lockpicking scene in general.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.15.187.34 (talk • contribs)
Note This was 67.15.187.34's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 13:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Doctrines[edit]

Non-notable satanists or whatever. Prod removed by anon. Leibniz 21:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Steve Jobs and delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nicole[edit]

A (poorly titled) bio article on Steve Jobs' daughter, Lisa. Lisa does not seem to be a notable individual; IMO she does not meet the standards of WP:BIO on her own, and being related to Jobs is not in itself notable. Some will argue that the Apple Lisa was supposedly named after her, but as far as I can tell neither Apple Computer nor Jobs have ever confirmed that theory, always officially stating that the name is an acronym for "Local Integrated Software Architecture". Therefore, the only "notable" information about her can't actually be verified. It could be argued that the industry speculation about the origin of the name is itself somewhat notable, but that is already mentioned in the Apple Lisa article and doesn't merit a separate article for Lisa Brennan-Jobs. -Big Smooth 21:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete It is ridiculous to have an article about a barely notable person without even using her last name. Nuke it. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lisa Brennan-Jobs seems to have become a journalist, or at least writer of magazine articles. One notable article is "Driving Jane" for The Harvard Advocate, about how her aunt Mona Simpson fictionalized her as a character in the book A Regular Guy. It also looks like she also wrote a whole series of (less autobiographical) articles for Spiked (magazine): [52], and the Harvard Crimson: [53]. Don't know yet if being a writer for notable publications, fictionalized book character, as well as daughter and niece of notable people combine to make her sufficiently notable. It's close. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds. Personally, I still don't think she meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO as an author, but you're right, it's closer than I thought. -Big Smooth 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Steve Jobs, with some mention of her in Jobs' article. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable--if writing is her job, you'd expect to find a few magazine articles under her name. Real test is whether articles have been written about her. Per WP:BIO, notability means "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" Glendoremus 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a "computer specialist", nothing written about her in independent reliable sources. Kavadi carrier 05:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a notable relative does not equate to notability. The trivia surrounding the naming of the famous computer model is already covered here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Steve Jobs. Yet to establish individual notability, and the Apple Lisa story isn't enough. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge anything salvagable to Steve Jobs. 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs.--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Steve Jobs as above. Robovski 23:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 04:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messiahs in fiction[edit]

Delete Article seems to be composed primarily of original research, and many of the instances mentioned appear to be unverifiable. It presently contains 58 kb of text and not a single reference or citation. Additionally, if this list were to be expanded to fully contain all fictional characters who shared the characteristics it described, the page would be far too long. Any individual characters with a verifiable messianic role should have that role covered in their article, not in one gigantic page like this. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep but only if condensed and cited. I'm torn on this one. I think a list/discussion of the topic is fine. It is certainly a more viable list-style topic than many others I've seen. And it's also something that someone might want to read up on. However as noted this article has very little by way of citations except that the productions themselves could be seen to be the primary sources. 23skidoo 05:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of better looking lists in Category:In popular culture. This kind of articles was invented to put cultural references outside the main text to keep it more on topic. It works rather well. May be renamed to "Messiahs in popular culture" and the link to it could be better placed in Messiah.
What regards "citations" - these texts are not about scientific projects. Example of high quality "In popular culture" article is Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am really not buying the definition of "messiah" that the article presents, or even the definition used by the category. For now, I think the category should be sufficient, but dying and come back doesn't necessarily make someone a messiah. Danny Lilithborne 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply My point exactly. The definition of "messiah" there is effectively equivalent to the archetypical protagonist in fantasy. If the article is kept, it will need its subject redefined. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - the definition of "messiah" needs to be better defined (the given definition doesn't jive with the definition at messiah), the list needs to be pruned to match, and references are obviously needed- I'm not certain that quality references for this sort of thign could be found. Many of the examples given just don't fit, even with the very loose definition of messiah given (I removed the Lord of the Rings section before I noticed the AFD). Otherwise, BALORT it, per WP:NOR.--DarthBinky 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Whitehead[edit]

Another reality show contestant who lost. She didn't lose; she quit, and someone has suggested this is notable. She's also failed to win a couple of non-national beauty pageants. Nothing else noteworthy. Mikeblas 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the series main article. Her quitting is worthy of a minor note within the main series article, but she as an individual is not notable. She also does not appear to pass WP:BIO, assuming the present article accurately represents her accomplishments. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe that her quitting is (mildly, weakly, kinda) notable... she was a semi-finalist in the Miss Texas Teen USA pageant twice & competed 2 other times (competing against over 100 girls from across Texas, and had to win local titles to do so - was Miss Houston Teen USA 2003), related to Miss Texas USA 2003 titleholder & Amazing Race contestant Nicole O'Brian. Its tenuous, but I think there is some notability there. 2000 ghits. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I missed that she was also Miss Corpus Christi 2004 and placed in the top 10 at Miss Texas USA 2005. Have added this info, referenced it and referenced some other things as well.-- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't deny she might become notable in the future, but do minor beauty pageant titles really qualify as evidence of notability? Especially when uncited, I doubt it. It would be nice if the article had some more citations for what is in there. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable show, therefore notable person. -- TrojanMan 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Does that also apply to the cameramen, janitors, studio audience members etc. who were on the show? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. I am assuming that TrojanMan was talking about the fact that she was a major participant on the show. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable due to a sum of multiple events which were partially notable.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Futurama gadgets. KrakatoaKatie 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holophonor[edit]

This article is entirely originial research, which violates Wikipedia's policy. It also is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, failing WP:NOT hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I suppose if someone created an article about Futurama Devices and merged the articles into that article sans the commentary about the various derivations from other fiction, I could support the articles staying. But short of that, these are original research and not notable in an of themselves. Montco 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) didn't know about List of Futurama_gadgets. Merge. Montco 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep What is the difference between this article and Springfield (The Simpsons)? And Bender (Futurama)? All are fictional stuff, and sources can be easily taken from the show. I believe the article can be improved. Cheers -- Imoeng 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Springfield is the setting for the Simpsons and that Bender is a major character in a television series, both of which are significantly more important than a minor item in a television series. Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major plot element from a notable television series? How does that not meet the criteria for Wikipedia? And further "as revealed in the DVD commentary of "Parasites Lost" and "Devil's Hands..." is in the article, which indicates that somebody heard someone say it in the DVD commentary. That makes it a source, and as such means that this article is not entirely original research. But just so everybody knows there is List of Futurama_gadgets which this could be merged to easily, if that was desired. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent the item's significance. The item is not a major plot element in the series by any stretch of the imagination. It has been prominently featured in a few episodes and has been seen, but not featured, in a few others. In as far as merging, I'd be happy to merge the information to the list of gadgets after the deletion of the article (I can view deleted content). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It's the crux of the final episode of the final series (Fry does a deal with the Robot Devil to be able to play the holophonor, and goes on to stage an operatic performance relying on his playing the holophonor) as well as having been featured in a previous episode. Robovski 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a major plot element in two episodes, there's no doubt of that. In fact, I'd say it's a very significant element of the second one, as Robovski already said. If it were just one, I'd say merge to that single episode, but given that it is in two, plus some of the comics, it just wouldn't work. But hey, go for the merge to a single article for the series. That'd be fine with me. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either all articles about all fiction that rely only on the fiction itself OR - or none b/c the fiction constitutes a source. This is classic WP:CRUFT - but not necessarily OR. Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all this Futurama fancruft into a single article ("List of devices in Futurama" or similar). Opabinia regalis 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube DrWho42 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflicted. Perhaps I should go with keep or merge. But either way, the info shouldn't be deleted by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know if the item is notable enough for its own article, but my utter, unwavering love of Futurama (with the exception of "That's Lobstertainment!", which even the show's creators admit is the worst episode) keeps me from !voting for a merge. Also, the fact that the (current) final episode of the series reolves around the holophonor is an interesting point (for the record, "The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings" is one of my favorite episodes). But... eh, I don't know. Just don't delete the article outright. -- Kicking222 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Futurama gadgets. I mean, really. ~ trialsanderrors 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per trialsanderrors M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 03:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Holophonor was central in two episodes (including the Series Finale), and I think it's important enough to keep. And, it's not original research if it's from a DVD Commentary. -- Scorpion0422 06:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, no it's definitely original research as it stands now. If you have a valid source, please cite the article appropriately. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 06:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The holophonor was also quite important in the plot of Crossover I Go Futurama! Sp3000 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. Though the article may need clean-up/improvement. Nic tan33 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Futurama Gadgets. --AAA! (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Being a prominent element in the final episode does not make it major. It's an object that has little impact on the show other than two episodes (and the first episode was about worms that allowed him to play it, not the Holophonor itself). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Futurama Gadgets. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the greater concensus. Daniel.Bryant 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is already too much fanboy cruft in the encyclopedia L0b0t 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per previous comments. —Malber (talk ·  contribs) 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge easily. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Danny Lilithborne 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge and redirect Certainly should not be deleted as it is an important aspect of several Futurama episodes. - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm a huge fan of Futurama too, but I have trouble justifying this as a seperate article. Unlike Planet Express Ship, which was featured in pretty much every episode, this was only seen a few times. The best place for it is List of Futurama gadgets. - Lex 07:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Futurama Gadgets. I'm a futurama fan, but even I don't think this needs its own article. --WillMak050389 22:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into List of Futurama Gadgets. -- Zanimum 20:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. If it wasn't for my RfA, this article wouldn't have been brought to an AfD (at least for the time being), and while I'm quite a Futurama fan, and would like the article to stay for that reason, I have to agree that it's not notable enough for an article. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per already discussed.--Stuart D. 08:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No comment. Lemonsawdust 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should comment as this is not a vote but rather a discussion. L0b0t 01:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide booth[edit]

This article is entirely originial research, which violates Wikipedia's policy. It also is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, failing WP:NOT hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I suppose if someone created an article about Futurama Devices and merged the articles into that article sans the commentary about the various derivations from other fiction, I could support the articles staying. But short of that, these are original research and not notable in an of themselves. Montco 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) didn't know about List of Futurama_gadgets. Merge. Montco 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reporting elements in fictional series does not constitute Original Research, and this article does not present any arguments as to suicide, or philosophical discussion. At most, I'd suggest a redirect and merge to a more general article about suicide in fiction, or even suicide in science fiction. BTW, this AfD isn't properly noticed on the article itself. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how. FrozenPurpleCube 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all this to a single article, see above. Opabinia regalis 00:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge into what? The Futurama gadgets article? What about all of the other fictional works which incorporate suicide booths? Unlike the holophonor, which is important only in the realm of Futurama, the concept of the suicide booth existed long before that show, and has been used in may other works. -- Kicking222 13:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's true, then I say Delete this, and an article about the suicide booth can be written that does not focus on Futurama. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite to reduce the focus on Futurama, as the concept existed well before the show. BryanG(talk) 01:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are several references to suicide booths in fiction, including Futurama. Place the Futurama info in a seperate section to de-empasize it. Greba 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as above; the concept is present in multiple fictional sources and seems worth documenting. However when the concept is used, it is not always a "booth" per se; for example in King in Yellow there are suicide centers that are clearly a larger building than a booth, but designed for the same purpose. I'm not a wikipedia expert so I don't know if that would justify a change of article title, a related linked article, or what. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.79.136 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons listed above. It doesn't just cover Futurama, but other uses of the term too. --FlyingPenguins 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Futurama gadgets. KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark matter (Futurama)[edit]

This article is entirely originial research, which violates Wikipedia's policy. It also is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, failing WP:NOT hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I suppose if someone created an article about Futurama Devices and merged the articles into that article sans the commentary about the various derivations from other fiction, I could support the articles staying. But short of that, these are original research and not notable in an of themselves. Montco 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) didn't know about List of Futurama_gadgets. Merge. Montco 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I could support a merge to List of Futurama gadgets even though this isn't technically a gadget. Reporting something in a fictional story isn't original research, so delete the speculative stuff and keep the rest. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a single article, see above. Opabinia regalis 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — merge into List of Futurama gadgets. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Nibbler Go Futurama! Sp3000 06:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge to whatever episode this was mentioned in. This is silly. Danny Lilithborne 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Express Ship[edit]

This article is entirely originial research, given that the sources are personal fan websites with no legitimacy (please see Wikipedia's guideline in regards to reliable sources), which violates Wikipedia's policy. It also is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, failing WP:NOT hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I suppose if someone created an article about Futurama Devices and merged the articles into that article sans the commentary about the various derivations from other fiction, I could support the articles staying. But short of that, these are original research and not notable in an of themselves. Montco 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC) didn't know about List of Futurama_gadgets. Merge. Montco 00:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Trim Not all of the information in the article is original research, but some of it is, so delete that, keep the rest. Additional sources may be available in various Futurama material, including the Comic books and other magazines. And I'm sorry, but an article describing a spaceship from a nationally broadcast television program is inappropriate for Wikipedia? Are you going to argue for the deletion of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and the other eight episodes about it, as well as the who knows how many other Star Trek, Star Wars, and other ships? Or heck, the Batmobile? Clean-up of this article is laudable, it looks like it could use it. Deleting it? No way. FrozenPurpleCube 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Seems to be pure Fancruft OR Bwithh 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a single article, see above. Opabinia regalis 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. I agree with Manticore, do you plan to nominate articles like Batmobile or Millennium Falcon? TJ Spyke 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. The ship itself alone should be as notable as the Discovery One, Liberator or Serenity.... Though, as mentioned, some trimming can be done and likewisely expansion of the other articles (i.e. its role in the Futurama Comics). DrWho42 00:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong, STRONG keep EVERY ship for EVERY sci-fi series has its own article, and those ships can't TALK! -- Kicking222 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Planet Express Ship is extremely important in the plots, especially Love & Rocket Go Futurama! Sp3000 06:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube and above. The Planet Express Ship does play a part in many of the episodes/comics, even 'only' as a transport. Clean-up/improvement of the article is acceptable, deleting it is not. Nic tan33 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The USS Enterprise has it's own page. And just about every other starship from Star Trek has its own page. The Planet Express Ship is central to the show and has been in several plots. It makes little sense to delete it. -- Scorpion0422 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. - per Scorpion0422 --AAA! (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The USS Enterprise is just a wee bit more notable than the Planet Express Ship - and by a wee bit, I mean infinitively more so. And just because other ships have articles doesn't mean they should. Nominate them for an AfD (the less notable ones). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ship is both a character, a setting, and a "gadget", so it can't be merged easily into another article. It is at least as notable as Nibbler, if not more so. Bhumiya (said/done) 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge This is still an encyclopedia and not a fanboy pop-culture website. L0b0t 12:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference or Merge. Look at some of the Final Fantasy articles I helped to feature and you should know how to do this. This way, all Original Research claims are wiped out. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kicking222 has a point. Danny Lilithborne 21:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Maybe it's not the USS Enterprise, but neither is KITT from Knight Rider. Much like in that show, Planet Express Ship is a transportation vessel and a character, and features prominently in almost every (if not actually every) episode of a noteworthy series. Lemonsawdust 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Integral part of the show, and shows up in almost every episode. Also, per Kicking222. --WillMak050389 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without this ship, there would be no show. -- Zanimum 20:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments for keep above. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King and Low-Heywood Thomas School[edit]

Private educational institution with no assertion of notability. Húsönd 22:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NN -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Oh, and I'd also be amenable to a merge with Education in Stamford, Connecticut as the "Private education" section of that is pretty skimpy. JYolkowski // talk 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A thorough, well-crafted article for a comprehensive school that includes a high school. We have broad precedent for retention of high school articles. The article makes a rather clear statements of notability regarding programs and former staff, that nominator seems to ignore. Alansohn 00:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore anything. There is currently nothing on the article that makes me believe that the institution is notable enough to merit an encyclopedic article about it. The fact that this person Jean Harris who might be notable was the headmistress of the school does not grant notability per se to it.--Húsönd 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holdek (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't made up my mind on this one yet, will do more research later, but I did find+ add an additional claim of notability to the school - they are one of only a very small number (203 secondary schools in the US) who subscribe to JSTOR. I added that to the article. JoshuaZ 04:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than notable enough for an encylopedia of schools in Stamford, Connecticut. Merging doesn't look appropriate, especially as this school is the result of several merges itself. Kappa 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not an "encylopedia of schools in Stamford" JoshuaZ 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It passes my bar of notability. — RJH (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the policy Who are the people most likely to use an encyclopedia? Will you use & trust an encyclopedia with or without your school? --Mike 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see anything in the policy that says a secondary school isn't notable - I would expect to find an entry for any secondary (of normal size) in Wikipedia. --Mike 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the record, WP:SCHOOL is not a policy yet. There are millions of high schools in the world whose eventual articles would never interest anyone, apart from their students who drop by every now and then just to vandalize them. All the information about non-notable high schools has its place on the respective schools' websites, Wikipedia presumes to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Húsönd 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record it doesn't look like it ever will be! There is no concensus at all on that proposal and to post a mere suggestion as "policy" is quite "economical with the truth"!
  • Strong Delete as above, there are thousands highschools all over the world. Are we going to put every Post Office too ? Tulkolahten 22:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive directory of non-notable schools. —ptk✰fgs 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, no problem here. Silensor 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good article (if short) notability asserted. AKAF 16:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and AKAF. Cynical 21:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. --Myles Long 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above!! Audiobooks 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- May be a single-purpose account; user is 3 days old and half of his/her edits have been to post this message to school-related AFDs. --Kuzaar-T-C- 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Pgk (CSD A7). Kavadi carrier 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Radio Network[edit]

Page violates WP:NN. Google finds almost no independant discussion of the Radio Network, outside Hal Turner. No mainstream coverage of the network. Article should be deleted or at least have the relevant portion merged into Hal Turner article. Ramsquire 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Hal Turner -- ßottesiηi (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. We can't delete and then merge, that violates the GFDL. JYolkowski // talk 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for the poor writing on my behalf. That "and" should be an "or". I believe that the article should be deleted or in the very least merged back to Turner. I'll fix the intro, to accurately reflect my position. Ramsquire 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this attack page and then redirect to Hal Turner. Tagged db-attack. Kavadi carrier 08:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funckarma[edit]

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. All of their albums have been released on non notable record labels. T REXspeak 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you have no idea about notable record labels if you think they don't pass the test. Let it in.

  • Keep Those are notable labels. Popular Euro-techno duo. --Marriedtofilm 02:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it clearly meets WP:MUSIC notable is also listed via the google hits TheRanger 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - pure speculation - Yomanganitalk 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twitches 2: Back to Coventry[edit]

Looks like crystal ballery. No good google matches [55] [56] so this appears to be a Wikipedia invention. Mad Jack 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Here's proof. [57]
    • Just because an actress mentioned a film in passing half a year ago, doesn't mean that film will be made (nor is there a source for anything in the article, including the full title). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Mad Jack 03:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twitches 2 and Twitches 2:Back To Coventry are working titles duh. And Tia mentioned them because she has signed on to do it. And Tia is not a liar, so therefore, it must be true.
      • The point is that a film mentioned in passing months ago has no guarantee of being made, nor is there any verifiable info on it (i.e. this "Back to Coventry" subtitle - where's the source? ) Mad Jack 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Tia is not a liar, so therefore, it must be true. Wow, that's the worst logic ever. Danny Lilithborne 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong/Speedy Delete Already been deleted as that source is not verifable. User:Lord Hawk 23:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete since no-one can confirm or verify the "Back to Coventry" title, the release date of October 12 2007, or the book written by a young boy named B.H. And once all that's gone, there's not much left! P Ingerson (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zenon 4[edit]

Crystal-ballery. Doesn't appear to be supported by reliable sources. [58] Mad Jack 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nod Mad Jack 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete producer of the Zenon movies was quoted as saying there will only be three. MiniMary12 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a relief ! Mad Jack 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL... I'm trying to find the quote for confirmation... MiniMary12 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Delete this has been deleted before for the same reasons and keeps coming back User:Lord Hawk 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creator has a history of putting up hoaxes like this. Danny Lilithborne 21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 improvement since Mike's comment, below. NawlinWiki 16:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debt Elimination[edit]

This entry is an essay as such fails WP:OR and fails to provide any sources, reliable or otherwise. The prod tag was removed by an anon user without comment. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Improve The article is an essay, it doesn't refer to any sources or justify that there is any widely known concept that could not be inferred from the words: "debt elimination". I checked, internet, but mostly it returned results for financial scams (which means a real concept might exisst but I can't find it). Give it 5 days to see if it improves, then delete! --Mike 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Most Americans can be free of debt if these strategies were used"? WP:NOT a how-to guide. ➥the Epopt 14:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Meiher[edit]

Hoax. Not supposed by sources [59] Mad Jack 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Xezbeth 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rich and the Rebellious[edit]

Hoax. Not supported by sources [60] Mad Jack 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in IMDb, hoax-ish. Caknuck 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creator has a history of putting up hoaxes like this. Danny Lilithborne 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as speculation. User:Lord Hawk 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Evgenevich Gerunov[edit]

NN. Cross-promoted on ru and here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. And article in ru-wiki has a ref[61] to a city radio web-site where the guy is indeed called a "world champ" and that the city is considering giving him an appartment for free. For whatever it's worth... --Irpen 05:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Changed to keep. --Irpen 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity. The speediest deletion possible. KNewman 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the guy won a lot of competitions, 386 ghits only on his English name and 1610 on his Russian nameAlex Bakharev 05:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had never known there was a world championship in karate, like in soccer. Do we really know how important were the competitions he won? B/c the articles here and on ru: are unquestionably an orchestrated attempt at (self-)promotion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are zillion of Karate branches, many organize competitions. [62] Обладатель 60 золотых, 8 серебряных и 17 бронзовых медалей, пяти кубков «Звезды мира» и трех кубков «Звезды России», заслуженный мастер спорта. Самое серьезное достижение - чемпион мира (2004 год, Мексика). Nobody said the name of the branch, still seems to be reasonable Alex Bakharev 05:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google hits for "Gerunov Karate" (Latin version) are 41 uniques. Good enough for me. --Pan Gerwazy 10:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Crazy Russian. WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find Alex's arguments convincing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he was champion on a small municipal level, I'd understand the deletion, but he has won national and international competitions. --Marriedtofilm 23:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a very notable an respected figure in sports. What i included are just some of his personal accrolades. There are tons of titles under his belt(and i mean competition at its highest level) which i hope you guys can expand on it. Maybe some of you are not familiar with Karate. Keep in mind that karate almost made it to the Olympics. I therefore appeal that we must keep this article.--TerenceWang 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep. Let's speedy-keep it. Obviously will stay, why waste time of others? --Irpen 01:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep yeah. speedy-keep it!--TerenceWang 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, vandal nomination. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 World Series[edit]

Who cares? The World Series is lame and we all know it... --RAUL654 (not posted by Raul654 but by User:ZEC117)

  • Keep And I\'m going to say clear Bad faith, so some admin fix this quick. FrozenPurpleCube 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • \'\'\'keep\'\'\' bad faith nom Montco 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
\'\'\'NOPE\'\'\'! I\'m afraid to say that this article fails loads of criteria and is a distraction and vandal magnet. --CURPS 23:57, 25 October 2006

Speedy Keep --JForget 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, this is stupid. Why do you waste admins' time like this? -Amarkov babble 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing O'Malleys[edit]

I don't think unaired pilots pass the notability criteria. Not many Google matches [64]. An IMDB entry is not immediately criteria for notability, and there seem to be few or no sources to support most if not almost all of the info Mad Jack 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little in the article is verifiable, as most of the information seems to come from rumor sites. Even if fully verified, a failed pilot isn't notable anyway. Fan-1967 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oddly, this page does link to an IMDB page, but that page says Hannigans with O'Malleys for character names. Very odd. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article history shows some renames. Some of this is very suspicious. There was a hoaxer a few months back (MCcoupe7 (talk · contribs)) who enjoyed creating fanciful projected Disney series, creating articles here as well as various other sites. (S/he returned last week with some more nonsense, and was banned.) I don't know if this is related to that or not. Fan-1967 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Housebroken (TV series)[edit]

Unaired pilots don't seem to pass notability criteria. No sources cited for article's content. Mad Jack 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Mad Jack 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "crystal ball". According to IMDb [65], the show is called "Arwin!". According to Petition Spot [66], the show has been shelved by Disney. Delete article until the show is added to the line-up. Caknuck 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does a pilot have to be aired to deserve a wikipedia entry? Fans of the Suite Life, or the actors in this pilot, may be interested to know that this pilot was made and what it was about. However, the pilot is not called Arwin, it is called House Broken. Stage11 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it would make interesting information. However, not to the level to deserve its own article. This information can easily be added to the Suite Life of Zack & Cody article itself in a couple of sentences. Mad Jack 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 17:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Fridge. --Ezeu 03:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Samsara[edit]

Nomination for deletion No claim made of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a nightlife guide. Clarification - "Escape from Samsara" was not a nightclub in terms of a physical venue; it was one type of regular party night that used the The Fridge as a venue. I am not questioning the encyclopedic notability of The Fridge. A little more detail could be added to the Escape from Samsara mention there, but a separate article hasn't been justified. I originally attached a prod tag, but I saw that the creator had recently discussed this article, and seems to have created the article in earnest, so I decided to take it here for discussion instead. Bwithh 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if a religious redirect is desired, Nirvana pr Brahmacharya may be more to the point, though the article should mention the Samsara word Bwithh 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_25&oldid=1116878361"