Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 25 October 27 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Lady Susan Cochrane[edit]

Lady Susan Cochrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep - but I would say that because I'm the author. I was reading the other AfDs and began to wonder whether I was setting the right standard for notoriety. I was writing about the 6th Earl and wondered whether his wife was notable, and found a whole essay about her as "the fairest" lady of Scotland. I found the story fascinating, but perhaps she isn't notable? - Oh and there weren't many hits on the search engine which appears to be a criteria! --Mike 11:17, 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL[edit]

Contested prod, meets some deletion criteria. --XLR Freak 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. I don\'t know why I bother saying that. Stupid bad faith noms. -Amarkov babble 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You\'re hot, wanna fuck? That is, if you change your mind about this AfD nom. --XLR Freak 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is where I begin to be annoyed by NPA. -Amarkov babble 00:14, 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 speedy delete per A7. —Angr 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Erfe[edit]

No apparent notability per WP:BIO -- Tim D 15:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources, no verifiability, and substantially doubtful notability -- Whpq 17:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO (these are all apparently unreleased films made through a unverifiable "independent studio"). Most of the article fails WP:V as well. In fact all I could verify is that the subject exists and is in the NHS... which still falls well short of WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Last I checked, on any reputable source of classic films, none of those listed were on it. As stated above, no sources cited, and seems like a bio does not meet notability. I live in the Hampton area and have not heard of him.Chris Kreider 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Apparent lack of notability is disturbing.UberCryxic 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. --Russ (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per {{db-bio}}. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry for causing this discussion. This article was only created on a bet that i could create an article about myself and have it last atleast a week. It has made it a week so this articale can be deleted. I thought it was cool to have a page at frist, but i am tired of fixing random changes my friends make. The movies have all been released under our small film studio and were made for school projects or just our personal enjoyment. I am in NHS good job Isotope23. Chris, being a high school senior i really doubt that you would have heard of me. Again sorry for causing you guys the trouble of having to go through this to delete my article -- Phantom_Effect 08:37, 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 deleted by admin Geogre (reason: A7 band). Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbanite[edit]

Non-notable band that fails the WP:MUSIC criteria. No allmusic profile as well as very few relevant Google results, of which none can be considered "reliable and reputable media".--TBCΦtalk? 00:22, 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. --Coredesat 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think This[edit]

Album (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing; please count me as neutral. BanyanTree 00:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN/V /Blaxthos 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Hello32020 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if the band is notable, and it has its own article, then so are their albums --Steve 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no, it's exactly the opposite; just because the band has an article doesn't mean every album needs one too. Since this is nothing but a track listing, there's not really anything to merge. Opabinia regalis 02:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a sentence or two and the jacket photo that can be merged.Obina 09:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - May not be a band I have heard of but there are already a huge numnber of other articles similar to this one. Away_from_the_Sun, from the more reknowned band, 3 Doors Down, has about same amount of content but no AFD tag on it. I am sure there are alot of others that have similar content that are by more popular bands. The band does have an article, and that is one reason why I think we should keep it. If there was no band article, or no track listing, or even the info at the bottom for the band members and there positions leads me to a keep. Chris Kreider 13:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Chrislk02 and Steve, that the band has an article. There are also many many albums without citations. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has a cover, a track listing, wiki links, and is clean and properly constructed. Hu 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge surely. The Toxik article is not large, and could stand some material on their vast two album discography being added. The album articles are short too, basically just boring track listings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 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 Keep. NawlinWiki 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TuVox[edit]

Recently founded corporation. (Closing admin: Procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 00:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10-25-2006 -- I completely removed irrelevant "external links". Nezzo 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam, NN, OR /Blaxthos 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Hello32020 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I listed this for speedy deletion under CSD G11, but TruthbringerToronto's edit provides a reference. If another reference is provided (thus fulfilling the WP:CORP requirement for multiple independent media mentions) I will change to keep. VoiceOfReason 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC) With references, this is a keep. VoiceOfReason 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, 2001 isn't that recent, seems to have fairly good mention in references. --Steve 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some more references from various industry-specific publications such as Speech Technology Magazine, so I think the company now passes WP:CORP. I still don't know how what the company's annual sales are because the company is privately owned. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the references seem pretty solid. Djdickmutt 04:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as can be seen by the ghits and (recently added) refs, the company seems to be pretty notable. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 05:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I dont see it as spam. I mean any corporate article could be seen as spam. It is a privatley held company but, they are recognized in some magazines (listed in the sources). I dont see why they shouldent have an article. Chris Kreider 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By looking at the customers (Activision, Citibank etc. etc.), the company seems notable. Google also placed this company on top of the list, with even many things that represent the notability. There are also articles from the news about this company. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, even though the name makes it sound like a Vulcan. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added three more references for TuVox (Red Herring, Call Center Magazine, The Wall Street Journal) Nezzo 23:58, 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 sources could have helped but none were produced in 2+ weeks. W.marsh 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Botanophobia[edit]

del nonnotable coinage. Original research. No reliable references: blogs, chats and various "phobia lists" that flood internet. `'mikkanarxi 22:30, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be as real as many internet items - there are web pages dedicated to this, such as [1] and professionals willing to be paid to cure us when we get this unfortunate condition. Does need clean up, and perhaps expert attention.Obina 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Move While I agree with Obina, I also think that the article either needs to be more in depth and cite sources or it should get moved to wiktionary. -bobby 16:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Since there are no reliable sources, it cannot be otherwise. Jakew 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Agree with Robertbcole. If the article is not in depth, better to move it to Wiktionary. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If it is a real psychological condition, it would warrant coverage in medical journals. That people talk about it in blogs or forums does not a notable subject make. --Jayron32 05:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like a fabrication to me. Must agree that if it were a real disorder it would be in the medical journals. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I heard that term and did not know what it meant, the first thing i would do is wikipedia it. The point is, I believe it adds value to wikipedia and therefore it should stay. Chris Kreider 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Why make a statement that would be a better DELETE defense than a KEEP defense. If wikipedia is the FIRST place you would find information on this word than it is original research (hint, click those little blue words to the left to learn more) and thus is instantly and iminently deletable. Anyone can make up a word and just dump it on wikipedia so others can "find out" what it means. That does not make it encyclopedia worthy. PRIOR EXISTANCE in reliable sources (hint, click those blue words too!) is a requirement for any article to exist on Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Jakew; no sources, no article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 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 10:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Egan[edit]

Non-notable sports writer. "May write for the Olympics one day..." Leuko 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN/OR/V /Blaxthos 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The one link in the article has nothing to do with anything. 129.98.194.127 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails both the WP:BIO and WP:VANITY guidelines. Around 385 Google results, many of which are not related.--TBCΦtalk? 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. ... discospinster talk 01:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not-notable. Hello32020 01:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable vanity article, stuff.co.nz link is meaningless. Original CSD was mine. --Steve 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Under 400 Google results, most of which are referring to an actor. I'm not really seeing a claim of notability, either. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May write for the Olympics. When that happens i'll write about him. Qaanaaq 12:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I dont know how many people here are Americans, I know that I am. Saying that, I am sure there are people notable in America that other people have not heard of, and vice versa. From what i see, he does not sound that "notable" though so ill have to go with weak delete. Chris Kreider 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating that this person is the noted journalist he is claimed to be in the article. It reads like a vanity article (by User:Chchbrendon), with too many unverifiable generalizations, and WP:NOT a crystal ball for someone who may write for the Olympics someday. And two major newspapers picked him up when he was 15? Proof needed but not found. --Kinu t/c 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and Google search returned zero result on the upper list. Cheers -- Imoeng 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May Be Deleted One Day Danny Lilithborne 22:00, 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 per WP:V and as a near word-for-word duplicate (as such, there is nothing to merge). This will be recreated as a redirect to Maryville High School (Missouri). --Coredesat 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofhound[edit]

This just plain isn't notable. It will never grow beyond being a stub. At bare minimum, it should be merged with the Maryville High School article. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am thirty years old. Not in high school and have never set foot in the state that this high school is in. Please don't make wild and unfounded accusations. IrishGuy talk 02:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The best place for information on a high school mascot is in the article on the high school. Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. High school mascots are not independently notable. Resolute 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Is the article List of unique high school mascots sorted by state also not notable? Unique high school mascots have quirky, offbeat names that that tell a lot about the local culture. There are at least two websites that attempt to catalog he unique names that are often funny if you have a sense of humor. Spoofhound was highlighted on an ESPN segment. Little stub articles like this will tell the stories of these quirky names. It's pretty clear from the comments thus far that the article is going to disappear. Too bad. There's a category for unique high school mascots. Americasroof 02:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, no, that list is not particularaly notable either. However, that is irrelevent to the discussion. This debate is not about the validity of that list, and linking a topic to another article does not make the original topic notable. Also, given how the discussion has gone, the information on Spoofhound will not be going, it will be merged into the school's article. In fact, it already has, so this article can either be deleted, or turned into a redirect to Maryville High School. Resolute 03:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment Since you created the article List of unique high school mascots sorted by state, I think it is safe to say that you cannot use it to protect your other pet article, Spoofhound. You cannot create two articles and claim they verify each other. IrishGuy talk 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should note that I have nominated the article on Maryville High School for deletion. Public high schools are, by and large, not notable either. Since that's where the 'spoofhound' article is possibly being merged to, I thought it relevant to point this out. --The Way 18:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Resonding to Americasroof's comment on my talk page, being "unique" , "quirky" or "fun" does not always make a subject notable. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCΦtalk? 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable sub-topic about a non-notable school. --Holdek (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - A unique mascot to an American high school with an interesting origin is more than enough reason for keeping the article. Just because an article is brief is not grounds for deletion. All articles were brief at some point, and length of article does not factor into article importance. Very strong keep. mobyrock 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't understand why this is even being debated, it's an incredibly clear example of non-notability. A particular mascot for a high school. Are we going to accept mascots for every high school in the country? Who is going to lookup a high school mascot? This is non-encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not a source for random bits of information. If their high school has an article it'll mention it (and I'll probably nominate the High School for AfD after looking at the article). This is a perfect example of what should NOT be on the Wikipedia. --The Way 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT. This is an international encyclopedia. I'm sure it's a very nice mascot but how notable is it on a worldwide scale? --Charlene 05:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that many of the people advocating deletion on the basis of the mascot not being noteable are not aware of how often it crops up in the media and other places. I sympathise with some of the other arguments, but certainly the world-at-large seems to think the Spoofhound is notable enough.Felixstrange 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Every single word is copied from the Maryville High School article, so there's no point in a seperate article existing. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 05:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect only: Indeed, a list of "notable" "unique" mascots is oxymoronic at the high school level. I went to a university with a green wave as its mascot, and, no matter how weird that is, it's not actually a matter of importance. If you want to see St. Bob's Frisbeetarian High School and Reformatory's mascot, go look at the article on St. Bob's Frisbeetarian High School and Reformatory. Geogre 11:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geogre, I have you beat... the mascot for the college I graduated from was the color blue. Still, I'd never dream of putting up an article for that. Not even college mascots deserve articles. --The Way 18:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blue? "Go, Color Blue!" The thing about the wave was that it raised the question of what an individual from the school was. If someone from Auburn is "a war eagle," someone from Texas is "a longhorn," I could never figure out if I was supposed to be a "green droplet" or a "aquamarine squirt." Geogre 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If wikipedia has a list of unique sports mascots, then, I dont see why the article should be deleted. Chris Kreider 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's "two wrongs" argumentation. Is your motion to delete if the list is deleted, as well as keep if the list is kept? Please square your vote with the deletion policy. Geogre 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry about that, I did not look at that argument in that way. I still think it should be kept. Defintley needs to cleanup though. Chris Kreider 14:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With the article for the school. It is senseless to have for each school an article about its mascot, its band, its school colors, its school song, its lunchroom, etc. Non notable: no mainstream press coverage.Edison 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is senseless to have an article about individual aspect of a school, unless that aspect is a unique and interesting point. mobyrock 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to me, there are 2 things to look at here. First, is the concept of the "Spoof Hound" Carnival Toy and the stated origin of the team name notable and verifiable. I think the answer to that is clearly no. All sources for this definition and explanation of a spoof hound are from this site (which apparently is based on submissions from the general public and is not in any way vetted or verified), the school website, and Wikipedia mirrors. I just don't see enough reliable sources to consider the supposed carnival toy and name origin to meet verifiability requirements. That said, the second thing to consider is if a high school mascot is notable enough to have a standalone article. I think the answer to that is no as well and it appears to be pretty common practice that mascots are only mentioned in the school article. I'd say merge, but the information has already been integrated into the Maryville High School article. I don't see much of a compelling reason to keep this as a redirect unless there is a licensing reason to do so.--Isotope23 18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the article should be kept in that the Spoofhound mascot is notable beyond Maryville High School. I'm an alumnus, and when we participated in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in 1989, every interview conducted with the band focused on the mascot above everything else. I've met strangers who have heard of Maryville High School only because of the Spoofhound. I'm always surprised at how often it is mentioned in national media. Personally, to me, its just a mascot, but it certainly gets a lot of attention. If I wasn't aware of the Spoofhound and heard about it, I might turn to Wikipedia to find out more about it.Felixstrange 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacking multiple non-trivial reliable sources to bear on its notability. —ptk✰fgs 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many, many articles fit this criteria. Very few articles have citations regarding the notability of their subjects. Why single this article out? Felixstrange 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't being singled out. It is one of many that are under AfD each day because they fail to illustrate encyclopedic notablity. Comparing it to other articles which may need to be reviewed isn't a very valid argument for keeping this one. IrishGuy talk 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the deletion process. My argument is based on the fact that the prevalence articles which do not attest to the notability of their subjects (most articles) indicates that this is not a particularly important standard for the inclusion/exclusion of an article. To restate: why apply a standard to this article which doesn't seem to be applied to articles in general? Felixstrange 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is applied to other articles. Guidelines for various subjects state that the verifiable importance of the subject must be outlines within the article itself. This article doesn't...quite frankly because it cannot. This isn't a notable and important subject. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, what is the benefit of deleting this particular article? Felixstrange 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same benefit as the removal of any other non-notable article...it benefits the encyclopedia to remove unencyclopedic articles. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answering that deleting this article benefits the encyclopedia because it is unencyclopedic is tautological. The real issue is why the article is unencyclopedic. You are asserting that it is because it is not "notable" or "important". This seems to me a very arbitrary and subjective criteria for removing someone's work from Wikipedia. There are many, many articles on Wikipedia that most people would find neither notable or important (trivia for a particular Babylon 5 epsiode, for example), but they are significant enough to enough people that they warrant inclusion under the prevailing standards of Wikipedia. If this work is to be removed, it should be for a specific (and compelling) reason. I don't feel that such a reason has been outlined. Felixstrange 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Uncle G/On notability explains pretty well why we want to ensure that included articles are on notable topics. —ptk✰fgs 03:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to Felixstrange's response to IrishGuy: Saying 'deleting this article benefits the encyclopedia because it is unencyclopedic' is actually not a tautology, one being a noun and the other being an adjective which descripes specific attributes that make something acceptable for inclusion within that particular noun. Aside from that, Wikipedia has pretty good and clear guidelines as to what qualifies something as being notable enough for inclusion and it seems many people here agree that this article does not meet those standards. Sometimes these standards aren't always the best, but they work quite well and without them AfD couldn't function. If you disagree with notability standards I believe it is appropriate to go to the pages outlining them and making a case for change on their talk pages. Finally, in regards to your statement that other things, such as Babylon 5 trivia, are kept: these are articles that have so far slipped through the cracks. AfD is run by average editors and they nominate things when found, things can last awhile before someone who knows about AfD and cares finds them. There is a lot of inappropriate articles out there that do need to be removed and that's what we're here for. An article on Babylon 5 trivia certainly would warrant an AfD nomination. --The Way 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is a textbook example of tautology. By definition something which is "unencyclopedic" is bad for an encyclopedia. My only point here is that the notability/non-notability of the subject of this article is not as clear as its being made out to be. I've certainly read about it in newspapers and heard about it on TV (some one has mentioned an ESPN feature). The main thrust of the notability guidelines Ptkfgs posted is preventing Wikipedia from becoming a directory, which is certainly not a danger in this case (the MHS article is another story). I mentioned the Babylon 5 example to point out that while in writing guidlines may seem very specific, in practice they can be very subjective. To be too literal and severe with the application of standards would result in deletion of a substantial portion of Wikipedia (as well as a lot of angry Babylon 5 fans). I just don't think the case is clear for this article. Felixstrange 04:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a B5 fan, and as a Wikipedian, I would prefer without hesitation to see many of our unnecessary B5 articles removed. —ptk✰fgs 13:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean begging the question rather than tautology. The odd mascots around the world (not just US) and their stories are always interesting, but they're curiosities. All curiosities get some slight discussion in the wider world, but usually in the context of "Hey, didja know?" segments. ESPN had had a mascot challenge, but it was devoted to college mascots (which are peopled by male cheerleaders and gymnasts, generally). Even with them, it was a "hey, this is cute" bit. What needs to be present for us to avoid either a Rippley's Believe-It-Or-Not or Guiness Book of Records museum of raree shows is for the mascot to be significant in its own right by something it does/has done. Did Spoofhound bite a player? Did a player bite Spoofhound? Other than some attribute to the story, we need something that needs to be explained about the mascot. Geogre 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Spoofhound is a cute little dog, and the very short story about the adoption of Spoofhound as a high school mascot is an amusing anecdote, but it just isn't ever going to rise above the level of loveable local trivia, based upon the evidence. Any useful information is already included in the article on the high school itself.OfficeGirl 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No need to merge into Maryville High School, since all the material is already in the latter article which should be kept (also up for deletion, see below). Hu 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, and even if it was, I'm not sure it would be notable. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent reliable sources, no realistic claim to notability. Also ( but that's of course not grounds for deletion) leads like "the only ... in the country" irk me big time, since of course there is only one country in the world. Sandstein 06:16, 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 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvanafanclub[edit]

An unofficial fan club for Nirvana. The article itself outlines no level of notability. It is simply a website for an unofficial group who like a band. IrishGuy talk 01:08, 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 agonizer. KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agony booth[edit]

Original research, violates Wikipedia policy, in regards to Wikipedia not being a repository for Star Wars cruft. The article is already documented on a Star Wars wiki and is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete you said it all. --User24 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "cruft" in question is Star Trek, not Star Wars. I don't know much about ST:TOS, and I'm not sure how major of a thing this was, but my instincts tell me Merge into the episode article is the way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, indeed, Star Trek... the sci-fi series in space similarities seemed to have stymied me hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with agonizer which this seems to be a variant of, as it is something that did appear in more than one episode, so you can't just put it in one. However, I don't see a reason to have two articles on what is more or less the same subject. FrozenPurpleCube 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Manticore. Most of this article may be discarded as OR. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It was only used in two episodes out of the 5 series. I think that clarifies as not-noteable. Koweja 23:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with agonizer and maybe merge into the relevant episode synopsis. --Steve 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • wait, if you delete our agony booths, how's the ArbComm to ... oh, you mean the article — okay, merge with some other Star Trek article ➥the Epopt 02:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I'd also propose merging ➥the Epopt into an agony booth for that joke :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:21, 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 delete. Next time, just add {{db-bio}} to the article.. —Cryptic 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marthinus Wessels van Heerden[edit]

Straightforward non-notablilty.

"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." (From Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion#Articles.) Robert 01:17, 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 merege/redirect. W.marsh 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No recent production news. Article can be recreated if production ever actually gets underway. Film information already merged at Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Erik (talk/contrib) @ 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia may not be a Crystal ball, but the information on this series is not speculation from Wikipedia members, but announcements that were presumably derived from existing sources such as IGN. As far as it goes, I wouldn't mind merging, but I don't see that it would really help, since it'd have to be recreated anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 02:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The reason that film articles get deleted for crystal balling is that we can't guarantee a film will be made. We don't keep articles of project announcements around just in case one day it finally takes off. It can't be for certain that the film will come around again, so a recreation may never happen anyway. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Even if it were never made, I'd say given that there is information from reputable sources out there (such as Variety), I would say that Wikipedia shold have information on it anyway. Either it would be "This movie happened" or "This movie was planned, but it didn't happen" and both should be on Wikipedia, given the circumstances (Of course a Jerry Bruckheimer film is going to get an article, even if it wasn't a fairly notable franchise). At the most, you might convince me of a merge, but this is AfD, not a proposal to merge. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the plot section needs to be verified or deleted but the remaining information about production has been confirmed by the IGN and IMDB link. Mitaphane talk 02:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please read why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and about notability with unreleased films. The "event" (making/release of the film) is not certain to take place, and the film has not entered production, instead being "expected to be made". There is no assurance whatsoever that production is underway (IGN citation in the article is from March 4, 2004). --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have, from WP:NOT "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Everything in the article (now that I've killed the unverified plot section) has now been properly referenced. —Mitaphane talk 02:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Thus why it's OK to have something like Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Future film. The sentence you quoted was to indicate that information about future proposals and projects don't have to be disregarded outright. It doesn't mean that it's OK to create an article about a film just because there's been an announcement to make a film. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 03:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Does it? WP:NOT doesn't say where information about expected future events can be placed. It does say forward looking articles about games, movies, etc. require special care not to be advertising but that's about it. If you want to propose a merge and redirect this article to the PoP:SoT that's one thing, but that isn't a matter of deletion. In fact, if the information in this article violates WP:NOT it shouldn't be on the PoP:SoT article either. —Mitaphane talk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Future film per Erik. Pre-production films shouldn't have articles with rare exceptions. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It does not exist. When it exists, it still won't be notable (although it is likely to be). When it exists, is released, and is reviewed, then it will be time for a tertiary account here. Geogre 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Future film per Erik and Dhartung if verifiably sourced. It can have its own article when the film is in production. --Alan Au 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Wasn't this nominated before? I'm sure I saw it here in AfD. TJ Spyke 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung. Danny Lilithborne 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and re-create when actors have been confirmed and cast, Derktar 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge, per above. WP:NOT doesn't qualify, as this article meets the standard for future events. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appears to be verifiable but until it is actually in production a mention on the source material's page is more appropirate than a full article. Eluchil404 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst, merge with Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Future film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is official policy, does not seem to apply because the information has been properly referenced as something that is likely to happen in the not too distant future and has verifiable details available about it, and that is likely to be notable once it happens (a theatrically released film by a major director). Notability of unreleased films (a section of Wikipedia:Notability (films)) is a rough guidline, not an official policy, but even so it is worded in such a way as to leave this article either in a gray area or in a "probably keep" area. Also, [3] has a more recent (2006) mention by the director that the film is expected to be made. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:51, 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 07:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor De Cordoba[edit]

Art gallery. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Please count me as neutral. BanyanTree 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete mentioned in a few places, but mentions are trivial. Found no non-trivial works about this organization. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not assert notability above the rest for the numerous art galleries in the LA area. Author of article removed db-tag. Michael Greiner 02:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Santa Monica Daily Press had a review of about 200 words on a show at the gallery. I think that coverage of an exhibit should count as coverage of the company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the education in how this all works. I am fascinated and appreciate how this process unfolds. I did remove the db-tag in error. Michael Greiner states "The article does not assert notability above the rest for the numerous art galleries in the LA area." There are other galleries from Los Angeles in Wikipedia. What are the specific criteria that must be met to warrant inclusion? "Notability above the rest" seems to be an imprecise guage for inclusion. Alexdc 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes this is a real place, mentioned in the local paper. So are many small businesses. While I am sure it is a very nice gallery, it is still non-notable. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of every local business.Obina 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no indication that this gallery stands out among items of its kind. A "notable" business is one that stands out in some fashion -- either through fame or infamy or uniqueness or importance to the industry. In most of these, the various NYC galleries will stand out, and yet we rightly do not cover them all. Any business that is operating in the middle of the pack and doing a good job is certainly admirable, but not probably encyclopedic. Geogre 11:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wiki is not a directory nor a listings magazine, which is what the links in the articles are, in actual fact. If I want to be really pedantic, in several of them the gallery is not the primary subject. Ohconfucius 03:20, 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 as promotional - CSD G11. Tom Harrison Talk 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DR DIY[edit]

Appears to be another non-notable student-produced independent film that aired on campus television. Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 02:10, 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 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Rassbach[edit]

Submitted here in lieu of prod deletion. Suspicion of a hoax. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:V. --Kinu t/c 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kinu. Either a hoax(with no reliable [per nom. Either a hoax(with no reliable ghits), or just some non-notable figure. Mitaphane talk 02:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find some source somewhere. Even then, I don't know if he's notable enough on his own for an article. Maybe a brief mention in radiation poisoning with a redirect. FrozenPurpleCube 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS. Likely a hoax, if it was true then references would surely abound on search engines. --Húsönd 04:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Manticore -MrFizyx 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:00, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Ishan Chowdhury[edit]

Disputed A7. Claims plenty of notability, sure, but if he really was CEO of three companies, google would be able to find more about him than a couple of lists on Amazon and a handful of forum posts. —Cryptic 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From the article current high-school student ok, so he's a that, and all the other things? I'm pretty sure this is clearly false information. I suspect somebody is having too much fun. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for Nikolai is a current high-school student. There's a reason he didn't mention his year of birth. --Wafulz 03:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a thing made up in high school one day. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-centred rubbish. Emeraude 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vain vanity in vain. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably needs to make a website dedicated to himself. --Marriedtofilm 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously a vanity page. Hut 8.5 15:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kruglinski[edit]

  • del kinda funny, but unfortunately nonnotable yet. `'mikkanarxi 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 02:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs more notability to make her dream come true! --Steve 02:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe in making dreams come true. Keep per WP:Whimsy. Derex 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Obina 09:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How sweet! Now delete. BTLizard 10:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfunny, self-referential, non-notable nonsense. Possibly speedy as vandalism. --Kinu t/c 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short-lived daydream. Very clever. But delete before the idea catches on and becomes a nightmare Emeraude 21:21, 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 flagged as copyvio. Next time, blank the whole article while adding the copyvio tag or add {{db-g12}} for the most blatant ones. MER-C 09:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Performance Technology[edit]

This page is completely confusing and useless. anskas 02:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete buzzword overload. I like how it spells out the acronym though, because we underperforming humans can't figure it out on our own. Opabinia regalis 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete word for word copyvio from [4]. Marked article as such. --Steve 03:11, 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 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic School's League of America[edit]

This is not a notable organization. 22 unique hits, and Wikipedia is first after their own website. Every one of their directors is a redlink, and the entire article text is unsourced. Opabinia regalis 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no verifiable notability. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN organization, no reliable sources.--Húsönd 03:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. I think I may have heard of this organization before, but only through research related to my personal professional work in my office, and only because I would have read the websites of nearly a hundred similar Islamic school groups. What I can say with certainty is that there are a great number of small organizations like this one. None of them seem to agree with each other enough to join forces and make one large organization. They all seem to want to be leaders, and none of them want to risk giving leadership authority to anyone else. None of these organizations has had a significant impact on anyone outside their own small circles.OfficeGirl 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. (Also I have an unfair bia's against organization's who u'se greengrocers apostrophe's in their name's.) cab 10:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:V. Cynical 21:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Deatherage Tobin, II[edit]

Non-notable news producer; a local Emmy award is not sufficient on its own to establish notability. Most Ghits come from this entry. KrakatoaKatie 02:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: this is a contested {{prod}}. KrakatoaKatie 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one ghit is from his own site. Also, the article was created by a user called "Vathomas" so it looks like vanity to me. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a borderline A7 speedy. We wish him well, I'm sure, but he is not encyclopedic. Geogre 12:58, 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 and redirect to Southern Methodist University. --Coredesat 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Campus (SMU)[edit]

Individual student groups and campus publications are not generally notable, and this article is virtually contentless. (Unless you really need to know their publication schedule?) About 200 unique hits, a decent number of which are general college information aggregates. Opabinia regalis 03:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMerge and Redirect as non-notable publication. Someone should probably trawl through List of student newspapers as most of those with articles would probably fail the same test --Steve 03:38, 26/30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Student newspapers are often notable, particularly when they are in the news themselves as an opposition voice on campus or as a victim of theft or vandalism. Take a look at The Daily Campus (a newspaper in Connecticut with the same name) as an example of how the article should be expanded. For example, a list of notable alumni of the paper would be helpful, as well as a discussion of how the paper itself was in the news, backed up by citations from other media. Being a stub is not itself reason for an article to be deleted. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That 'student newspapers are often notable' does not mean that this one is! --Steve 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Southern Methodist University - all of the information in this article is already contained in the in the SMU one. This article is just a rewrite and it doesn't assert the subject's notability. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Eusebeus 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SMU, and thus with all college newspapers unless they're making news themselves (e.g. the hateful Dartmouth Review). Geogre 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or failing that, Delete. Only a tiny handful of student newspapers are encycloepdic. the vast majority are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SMU.Edison 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Merge the content into the schools page. It is only 2 or 3 lines and would honsetly be seen more on the schools page than as its own article. Chris Kreider 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has improved a bit since it was nominated. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:39, 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 10:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unique high school mascots sorted by state[edit]

An obvious POV violation, since how one defines something as "unique" varies differently from person to person. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --TBCΦtalk? 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reasons above. Uniqueness isn't defined, even if the mascots fit a definition of 'unique' that does not imply a relevant amount of notability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. The article for 'Spoofhound' is also up for deletion today, and its apparently one of these 'unique mascots' (I'm guessing the same person is responsible for both). --The Way 04:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable POV listcruft. "Oh, but OUR giant bear is unique because it wears a BROWN t-shirt!" Looks like it was copied from the external links. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and how do you measure uniqueness? Qaanaaq 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We're all unique, like a snowflake, but high school mascots need to be talked about outside of their area, and significantly, to require encyclopedia listings. Geogre 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far as I can tell, they seem to mean "unique" in that the team name isn't duplicated at another school, like Spartans, Panthers, or other common ones. Some of these are actually pretty interesting and bizarre: Kittens? Midgets? Papermakers??? But overall the list does fall under the "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information" criteria. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Listcruft; unmaintainable; and useless at that without information on which high school in each community actually uses the 'unique' mascot. -- Bpmullins 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a random colletcion of information.Edison 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons TBC cited in his nomination. The criteria for this list is too vague, POV, and not quantifiable. There is no way to make this WP:NOT indiscriminate information.--Isotope23 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom and other reasons ststed. Incidentally, 'unique' is easily defined - basically there's just the one and no other. But so what? As Geogre said above, "We're all unique, like a snowflake..." but we don't all deserve encyclopaedia mentions and neither does every snowflake! Emeraude 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go Growlbaaaaacks... Danny Lilithborne 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My high school's mascots were the "Trees." GROW, TREES GROW! (chanted at soccer games). I'll wager that's about the most unique that you'll find. But we'll add our name to the "Unique Mascot List" when we see that list on a bulletin board or private website-- because that's where such a list belongs, not an encyclopedia. OfficeGirl 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Unique" is subjective and non-excluvise. Whats next a list of unique lists? Arbusto 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damnit Jim, this is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of subjective and unsourced information! Set admin phasers to delete! —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to/Merge with list of high school mascots. "Unique" is POV or complicated to reference for this type of list. -- User:Docu
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elucidate[edit]

This article concerns a vocal trance artistic group. It was originally speedied by me. The article's creator was very polite and earnest, and has since spent some time expanding and sourcing the article, so that I now feel it deserves an AfD. I am not knowledgeable enough concerning alternative music to evaluate these sources, but do say Weak delete given my doubts. If the article is deleted, would the closing admin please userfy the content back to the creator, so that he might work further.

For the record, the previous nomination of "Elucidate" at AfD has nothing to do with this; it concerned the English word. Xoloz 14:48, 15 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per InShaneee. Just a local DJ team. 74 listeners on Last.fm. Just doesn't seem notable (yet).--Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Bandity. Geogre 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all due sympathy for the polite and earnest creator, genre is not generally a consideration in notability discussions, except for artists who are so notable within an obscure-but-notable genre that they would deserve mention in an article about the genre. Which is clearly not the case here. Failing that, we fall back on WP:MUSIC, a test they clearly fail. Xtifr tälk 23:11, 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. If content is needed to be merged let me know. W.marsh 19:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpletones[edit]

Contested prod, reason can be found on the talk page of the article. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. MER-C 12:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Addhoc 12:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MUSIC itself says that This page gives some rough guidelines, and I think the author's assertion on the talk page that almost any avantgarde jazz from a small country like Belgium will, by its nature, almost never meet these requirements even though these bands can be influential as part of the jazz scene makes sense. Surely WP:MUSIC is to avoid thousands of articles on completely NN "Three Blokes In A Pub"-type bands? I'd be happier if some of the musicians mentioned already had verifiable articles, though, hence Weak Keep Tonywalton  | Talk 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should we consider move to Jazz in Belgium? Addhoc 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author mentions on the article's talk page that they're considering something like that. I suspect (and not being an expert on Belgium, jazz or avant-garde I'm not sure) that Jazz in Belgium might be too broad a term as this seems to be a specific form of avant-garde jazz. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gotta disagree with the assertion that WP:MUSIC makes it difficult for Belgian bands to merit inclusion. A nationwide tour of Belgium could be accomplished in one day (one of the reasons that I've never liked a nationwide tour as being acceptable grounds for inclusion). ergot 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yields plenty of hits on search engines. Smeelgova 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for the suggestions. I agree that I need to add more articles of some of the musicians, but the problem is that many of those articles will only link to other bands they've played in. A page on Jazz in Belgium isn't something I could produce because I only know about avantgarde jazz, not mainstream. The Belgian music scene is very complicated, and bands don't stick to specific genres at all. I'll try to add more information, based on my own (out-of-date) website, but it's difficult to be verifiable in this kind of things. Maybe I should write a general article first? Svanimpe 20:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem with basing it on your own website is that that may not be verifiable and your website may not count as a reliable source. Verifiability is an absolute criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. A general article sounds like a good idea in any case. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:05, 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I cannot endorse a move to a general article that does not exist yet. I think the answer to the question above is that if an avante-garde jazz group from a small country is influential in the world of jazz, that will have an impact in terms of reliable sources writing about it. I don't see why an avante-garde jazz group from a small country is different from, say, an avante-garde rock group from a small US state, for instance, but nobody would suggest that the US state is suffering some sort of discrimination against its music. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and fails WP:Music. I suspect their release was self-produced. Eusebeus 09:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Band vanity, with no verification. If they're real and have a big effect on the world, then it is the duty of the authors to verify this. Their ability to protest the prod and the vote, but not to satisfy our requirements, looks like just another case of hoaxing or vanity. Geogre 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One probable reason for high number of hits is band using a prior, commercially released band's name : The Simpletones, a California group released on Posh Boy Records beginning in 1978 and with recordings contained in compilations released on other labels in multiple countries. One of the group's songs "I Have A Date" written by Jay Lansford has been re-recorded by The Vandals released on Kung Fu Records, featured in a Warner Brothers film "Trojan War", another song "California" (Jay Lansford) by the cast of the TV show "The O.C.". Members of the 1978 Simpletones went on to become members of a myriad of commercially released groups, released on both major and indie labels. Robbie Fields
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuck Profit[edit]

Non-notable online student newspaper, prod tag removed by author. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). Maxamegalon2000 03:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete (A7) Sounds like an interesting project, but it's totally NN.--Húsönd 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The editors seem to specialize in articles which will cause a reaction, and one such reaction is mentioned in the article: "Leela Damm T'06 responded with a front-page story in the Tuck Times the following month". That's one "non-trivial published work whose source is independent of the site itself." If a second published work can be found, such as an article in the university's faculty and staff newspaper, then notability is demonstrated. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am extremely reluctant to even consider that a publication of the respective school would serve as a reliable, plausible, third-party source. Furthermore, claim to such source is unverifiable.--Húsönd 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding this Tuck Times being a source for an article on the Tuck Profit, um ... no. I don't consider that an independent source (for all we know, the one is just a blow-off-steam spinoff of the other). Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 06:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recently started online paper, non-notable.Edison 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither notable, nor likely to become so.--Duncan 15:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the founder of the Tuck Profit (and relatively new to Wikipedia), not sure whether it's appropriate for me to comment in this forum (obviously I'm biased). I'm wondering how to prove that The Tuck Times is a real student newspaper at Dartmouth, as they do not have an online presence. Would scanned copies of the print publication be acceptable? By the way, the site receives between 30 and 400 unique visitors/day and is achieving notoriety among the Tuck School of Business alumni community. But I guess the relevant questions are 1) 'does this make it notable?' (yes, it's one of the top ranked business schools in the world) and 2) 'how can I prove this?' (which is where I need help!). Thanks! Christopherherbert01 23:37, 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. --Coredesat 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vernian Process[edit]

Has released two albums and two EPs, but as his myspace says, they're all self-published on Lulu.com ([5]). Doesn't show up on Amazon or Discogs, and has no media mentions whatsoever. Just one guy who happens to have released some of his own music, but has no third-party reliable sources to support writing anything about him. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a self-promotional piece more than an informative article. Even in articles on more widely known bands they do not typically post sizable graphics of all their album covers. I don't know if this violates wikipedia's policy but it seems more like an advert.

Now what's this all about then? If you guys want to delete this article. Whatever I don't really care. I mainly added it because someone else had mentioned my project in the list of steampunk works article. So I wanted to create a basic encyclopedic entry for this site. I will admit that perhaps the inclusion of cover art came off as advertising so I removed them. I don't know what requires my project to be considered notable? Especially since it's mostly free. Does one have to sell their work to be considered notable?--FACT50 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though it does read like an advert and needs some work to meet up to Wikipedia's standards, I believe it should be kept because Wikipedia is not paper. It is important to note that WP:Music is simply a guideline and not policy.

I have edited the article into a more encyclopedic style. I agree that it did read a bit like an advertisement (which I really wasn't intending). Like I mentioned above, I was so surprised to find a reference to this project on the steampunk related articles, so I just threw a page up. I have some collaborations that I am currently working on with Attrition's Martin Bowes and Jill Tracy. Should I not include those in the article, as they have not been released yet? Also should I link the interviews and reviews that exist of my work? Thanks. --FACT50 02:24, 19 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, KrakatoaKatie 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC which I'm perfectly happy to use as a guideline in cases like this. Move from Lulu to a label and it might be different. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, clearly fails WP:Music, EOS. Eusebeus 09:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be considered a notable band/music project, you have to be signed? What happened to artistic freedom? I guess being the first musician to tackle an otherwise untapped musical genre (see: steampunk) isn't notable enough? So as long as I just keep giving my music away for free, and avoid working with record labels, my work will never be considered notable? If that is the case I'll delete the article myself. I don't want to have anything to do with such a fascist site. --FACT50 09:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it's not about being fascist. If there are enough reliable, independent sources (like music magazines or prominent websites) writing about an unsigned artist, then they're taking note of them. If they're signed to a label, obviously at least the label has taken note of them. But, if we don't have these guidelines, we can end up with articles based on what every kid in a garage has had published in his friends' blog about himself. It's about having reliable, sourced information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that, and I understand why you don't want every garage band listed on the site. However, reliable sources have written about this project. I mean as far as music in this genre, it doesn't get much more official than if Mick Mercer has written about it multiple times. He is the author of pretty much every book on the Gothic/Darkwave/Ethereal subculture. This project has also been featured in print media, that is available nationally. Nothing like SPIN, or any major magazines. You kind of have to be signed or tour year round to be noticed on a large scale. But whatever, I know that I have created something genuinely unique. It just sucks that the worlds free encyclopedia doesn't include things unless they are recognized nationally. Even if there are other music projects (i.e. Abney Park (band)) that have been inspired by this project who have valid wikipedia articles. Yet are also independent artists. --FACT50 08:52, 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 deletion by admin Geogre as it falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. TBCΦtalk? 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cowboy Bar[edit]

Unsourced article about a probably non-notable group of Internet users. Peter O. (Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. Most of the Google hits aren't even related to the site in question. Most of the hits are for actual bars & restraunts. --andrewI20Talk 04:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. I can't imagine that a non-public forum (not visible without registration) and a Google group together consitute any kind of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:23, 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 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armaghan[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Stewart[edit]

prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:43, 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 11:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kavanaugh[edit]

prod was deleted by User:58.69.79.32. This is a non-notable game show contestant; a losing participant in a reality television show that didn't distinguish herself after the show. -- Mikeblas 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reality show contestant is almost like "has a blog" these days. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn contestant. Eusebeus 09:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. More reality TV cruft. MER-C 11:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best a redirect to ANTM5. Maybe a bit more than 5 minutes of fame, but still only a minor local personality ;-). "Carolyn Ferrari" + Jewelry scores 10 unique Ghits, considerably fewer than Kyle's 198 hits. The cleanup continues.... Ohconfucius 03:41, 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 boldly merged and redirected as it should have been instead of being nominated. GRBerry 02:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCAS personal statement[edit]

Although this article no longer reads like a 'how-to guide', it does not warrant its own article. I think the personal statement should simply form a section of the UCAS page. Even after cleaning up the article, the remaining information is very dubious, and not particularly encyclopaedic. —anskas 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it go in College_admissions? The US section is pretty comprehensive. Johan Aruba 18:34, 17 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And don't merge, since the relevant section in UCAS covers the topic adequately. Emeraude 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do we really need to be discussing this at AfD at all? I don't see anyone fighting to keep. Someone could simply be bold and drop anything they thought was useful into the relevant section of UCAS, then turn this article into a redirect. FWIW, I think Emeraude is right, and that the section in UCAS doesn't need much or any expanding. AndyJones 12:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even think about doing that! Sure, consider it done. —anskas 14:41, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryville High School[edit]

Just a random public high school and Wikipedia is not a place of random info. Absolutely non-notable. We can't have articles for every high school in the country, simply unencyclopedic. The Way 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral but it is linked to another AfD (Spoofhound) --Steve 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to just meet WP:SCHOOL (>50 years, highest-level athletics until this year). --Dhartung | Talk 06:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article lists notable alumni. It is linked from a list of high schools in Missouri. It is integrated into the history of Northwest Missouri State University. I didn't create the article (or the Spoofhound article). I just tried to bring it up the wiki ladder (and unfortunately got the Spoofhound noticed). Comments on afd on Spoofhound is urging it be redirected to the school. I copied the spoofhound write up and pasted it in since the Spoofhound is probably not going to survive the afd debate. Yea, the article needs more work but it's not a reason to delete it.Americasroof 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Virtually every high school in the country has notable alumni; notable alumni may help give a University extra reason to have an article but certainly not a high school. It's history is no more notable than thousands of other high schools in the United States. We can't have articles for every high school in the US (which in turn would force us to accept articles for high schools worldwide), that would be ridiculous and, again, this high school is no more notable than thousands of others. --The Way 07:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like it or not, it does meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria for a keep. I understand your issues with high school articles and most high school articles I've seen don't meet the WP:SCHOOL criteria. But I just ignore them and don't throw down the afd hammer on them.Americasroof 07:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, WHO CARES IF IT MEETS THE WP:SCHOOL CRITERIA? Those criteria are 1) PROPOSED, and 2) TERRIBLE. -- Kicking222 13:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As usual with high schools, the article is misnamed, and, as usual, it does not provide us a history that indicates that the school is the subject of discussion outside of its local area and alumni circles. It is an institution doing its regular job, and any institution doing its regular job that isn't discussed for some other reason is below the threshhold of encyclopedic content. Geogre 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No opinion on deletion, but if kept it should be disambiguated from Maryville High School (Tennessee). Gazpacho 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the Marysville/Maryvilles in Ohio and Maryland, as well. It is misnamed, as most high school articles are. Geogre 18:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Americasroof makes a good case for keeping the article above. I don't understand these people who get delete happy with each article that doesn't stand up to every proposed criterian. Kicking222 got it right. Most of the proposed critera is stupid and illogical. mobyrock 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Americasroof... you just defeated your own argument. The criteria, apparently, in this case actually SUPPORT keeping the article. However, Kicking222 and you are both right that these criteria are not very good and are not yet actual guidelines; they are a work in progress. Thus, they aren't going to be the linchpin in this argument. I think it would be ridiculous to have articles for all high schools. My hometown has three high schools alone, and many big cities will have tens of them. We're talking thousands of articles if they are allowed to exist. --The Way 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion, but I wanted to second Gazpacho that if consensus is keep, I'd ask that the closing admin Move this to Maryville High School (Missouri) and DAB Maryville High School to include the TN, OH, and MD schools.--Isotope23 18:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I disagree with nominators assertions. The school "deletion camp" must be operating under a self-perpetuating meme. ;-) — RJH (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, there are simply many editors who feel that there are people attempting to put very trivial articles up. High schools simply aren't notable enough to warrant articles, it opens a floodgate.
Also, I want to point out that the two 'notable' individuals who are claimed to be alumni of the school aren't really all that notable and, furthermore, they aren't sourced. The article does not cite anything that shows that they actually attended the school. Finally, being the top school in a number of sports can warrant having an article; the last time this high school won anything was in the 1970's. --The Way 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Way, I don't understand your obsession with this -- especially coming from somebody who is using Wikipedia to post personal photographs of yourself. Are you notable? Should we be careful to avoid the even worse floodgates of millions of individual users using Wikipedia bandwidth for personal scrapbooks? As mentioned the article meets the current draft of criteria: a school with notable alumni, something unique about its mascot, and a school history going back more than 50 years. You say that most schools have notable alumni. Well, if they do, I look forward to their articles being written. The argument is being made in the Spoofhound afd to redirect to this article. Now you're turning around and trying to eliminate this article. Americasroof 19:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and warning: AfD is for a discussion and vote on an article for deletion, not for an ad hominem directed at a voter. Discussions should be about the articles and the deletion policy, not "all schools" or "people like you" or "deletionists" or anything else. Does an article about a school doing what schools do fit with an encyclopedia as well as a Yellow Pages, almanack, and census report? What makes it more fitting than, say, the red light at 86th and Lexington in NYC, which is doing its job, is seen by thousands, and has had many famous people use it? What is it inherent to this topic that sets it apart? Is it properly located? Is it sufficiently written? Is it useful to readers? Geogre 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I attempted to upload a single picture to my userpage, which is, as far as I know, acceptable and if its not I'm more than willing to remove (I've certainly seen it done on a number of userpages). And anyways, the upload didn't work and I'd like to delete the attempt though I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that. That aside, my editing on the site, and I feel I've been by and large a good editor, is not relevant to this particular debate and it seems to be an attempt by yourself to draw attention away from actually pertinent information. There is a major disagreement here about what should determine notability. The school notability guidelines remain a work in progress, they are not yet official and therefore do not necessarily hold. A unique mascot does not create any notability, one could make an argument that every mascot is unique. The criteria of uniqueness are inherently subjective and one look at the article that's a 'list of unique high school mascots' shows that a ridiculous number of schools make this claim. Anyways, that list article is up for deletion and it appears that it will be deleted. I simply do not believe that high schools, unless they are very well known, deserve articles. A lot of other editors agree, a lot disagree. Its a legitimate position and its up to the administrator to decide. Please refrain from personally attacking myself and focus on the argument at hand. You make good points, I hope I do as well; the issue is not clear cut. I just don't like the precedent it sets and think that having articles for every school (and what about every hospital? shopping mall? grade school?) will open the floodgates and is a waste of space. I know you disagree and that disagreement is valid. I have good faith that you are acting in a way that you feel is in the best interest of the Wikipedia and I'd appreciate it if you had the same good faith in me. --The Way 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletions, merges, and personal photographs aside, you've got some of my favorite bands listed under your profile. Good taste in music! mobyrock 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Moby, my tast in music is great, isn't it ;) I also just wanted to say, as a final means of defending myself (which probably isn't necessary, but please indulge me for a moment) I've only nominated two articles for deletion ever, this being one of them, and the other was not a school. If this article is kept I'll refrain from nominating high schools in the future. I really do want consensus and I really do hope that people don't take my arguing for deletion as an attack upon the school; I'm just doing what I think is good for the Wikipedia. --The Way 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a longstanding public high school, we have near-complete consensus that such schools are notable. The prominent alumni and unique nickname are all explicit claims of notability that justify retention. The article can only benefit from further expansion and improvement. If we all work together to improve existing articles and create new ones, there's no reason that the nominator's dream of an article for "for every high school in the country" can't be fulfilled. Alansohn 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Spoofhound. The school itself is not notable, but it would be useful to have a sentence in the other article that this is the only school to use the Spoofhound as a mascot. —ptk✰fgs 00:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has multiple notable alumni. JoshuaZ 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got sources? --Rob 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Secondary school, ergo not notable. AKAF 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure if the second one is meant as a point or not but this does seem to illustrate the degree of division among school editors. JoshuaZ 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC) apparently AKAF means that secondary schools have no inherent notability. JoshuaZ 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article on worthwhile topic based on well established (and appropriate) precedent, particularly for high schools. However, the unverified stuff (e.g. alum) will need to be removed. --Rob 01:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about vandalism to article to influence voting - For the record Rob vandalized the article after folks had noted the alumni list in their votes. The names removed were:
Comment Thievierr (Rob) posted above in SUPPORT of keeping the article so I doubt this was vandalism. Instead, he seems to have acted appropriately as he explained when he deleted the two notables; they were unsourced and therefore unverified which, as he noted, is enough to legitimately remove them. The article appears that it will be kept anyways, so it probably doesn't matter. --The Way 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be spectacularly notable but even a weak notability shows a good faith effort to make the artice notable. I can't put them back in the article because there will probably be a revert war. Americasroof 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's not be silly with the word "vandalism". I removed the two alum names, because they are not sourced. People are (apparently) "voting" based on the presence of these names. That was wrong. Verifiability is a core principal of Wikipedia. When signficant claims are made, with no sources, or indication sources are likely, and the claims aren't "obvious", or universally known (e.g. "sky is blue") then removal is appropriate, as they are unverifiable. Leaving unsourced alums during the AFD is harmful. We do not want people to add unsourced claims to articles, to save them from AFD. Its difficult (or impossible) to prove most claims false, so the onus of proof is on those who advance a claim. Anybody wishing to keep an article could just make-up something that sounds good. Finally: if we have no waying of knowing if something is true why would we wish to publish it? --Rob 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly important enough to be discussed in its local area. Kappa 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from being the home of the mighty spoofhound, this has nearly 2,000 hits on Google News Archive. [6]. Plenty of sources for an article. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: your sources are for Maryville High School, but you don't differntiate between the different schools with that name. If you can't be bothered, why should we? Fram 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the keeps above, I have nothing more to add here. Silensor 05:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keeps above, the alumni seem notable, and they won a few championships. I believe that means that the school meets WP:SCHOOL.SuperDT 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one or t'other, but not both: Either delete Spoofhound (up for deletion above) or this one. I suggest deleting Spoofhound since all of that material is incorporated in this article. Hu 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral- seems notable, but needs reliable sources added. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please argument for deletion is very poor wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nor is it a repository of random information. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools below the university level per Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Although I could probably live with them being made into redirects to really offensive sex acts per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Teresa Isaac 02:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was done arguing for deletion, but I feel that it should be noted to people making their arguments and to the administrator who will close this article regardless of the outcome, the guidelines for WP:SCHOOLS which have been a large basis for the arguments in favor of keeping high schools has been rejected and therefore do not apply in the least bit anymore. Again, please note that there are thousands of high schools in the US alone and when you take in all secondary schools across the globe (can't even imagine how many there are in India or China, for example) do we really need to have articles for all of them? This is not a directory, we don't have articles for every hospital, every business, every police station, etc. nor do we need them for all high schools. High schools are are relatively the same and Wikipedia is not the proper source to look up there differences. Certainly, there are going to be some (very few) exceptions (like the one mentioned above), but this isn't one of them. --The Way 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Note to closing administrator: I though I was done arguing for retention but there seem to be a few embers of deletion still glowing dimly. There has been criticism of those who have supported retention of this article who have made reference to WP:SCHOOLS, an effort to create clear objective standards for which school articles should be retained, and which should be deleted. While the guideline did not achieve consensus, it is light years ahead of any other guideline, and stands in stark contrast to the utter lack of any meaningful Wikipedia guideline used by school deletion voters, who must resort to rather insightful "arguments" for deletion, such as "Secondary school, ergo not notable" or "Delete all schools below the university level" or "a random public high school", with the helpful suggestion that redirecting from the schools "to really offensive sex acts" would be an acceptable alternative. It's time that we stopped the staggering waste of time playing AfD Roulette, in which nearly every high school article, with few exceptions, with any meaningful content are retained, demonstrating a clear consensus and explicit precedent for retaining such articles. I recognize that there are those who prefer some arbitrarily high standard for retaining such articles, but unfortunately we have no consensus on these self-imposed made-up standards, let alone anything that approaches the comprehensive, good faith effort to do so at WP:SCHOOLS. If WP:SCHOOLS is unsatisfactory, let's see an alternative standard that will achieve consensus in the community. Alansohn 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: alternative standard? Just use a similar standard for schools as we use for people or even better corporations and companies. Are they run-of-the-mill, or are they exceptional? Are there multiple non-trivial references in secondary, major publications (WP:V)? Taking this school as an example: the only reason I can see for keeping it are the School championships. Having a unique mascotte is quite trivial. Now, I can't find a source for e.g. the wrestling titles, so I can't judge if this is true, and how important this is. And this is a problem with many school articles I have supported the deletion of: either they have no non-trivial info at all, or it is all unreferenced and stays so even after asked for verification. As WP:V clearly says, it is up to those wanting to keep something (either a claim or a whole article) to provide references, not for those wanting to delete it. So in general, my school standards are a combination of WP:NOT, WP:V and the general idea of WP:CORP. Satisfactory? Fram 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, the poor man's choice for justifying deletion: WP:NOT. Basically, WP:NOT is almost always used to mean "anything I think doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I'm unwilling to come up with an actual argument." It's fine and dandy to trot out WP:NOT as an excuse, but a simple read of the laundry list included there shows no item that is relevant to deleting any and all schools as you imply. If you insist on pursuing WP:NOT as an excuse, can you please share which clause this article (and all other school articles) fail. I see ample information and sources in this article, in full compliance with WP:V. Have you read WP:CORP? is it a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity "? C'mon you can do better. Alansohn 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not a directory is often a very good description of what school articles are: nothing but an entry from school directory website. I dod not say (or certainly did not mean) that "every school" fails WP:NOT, that would be ridiculous. But articles like Flynn Park School, St. Catherine Laboure, Fairfax High School (Fairfax, Missouri) or Bayless Senior High School (to name some random examples from Missouri alone) are nothing but directory articles. And I explicitly said "the general idea of WP:CORP, as it does not literally apply (no accepted guideline does). Then again, why would a school not be a corporation?[7] As for your other comments: where are the ample sources per WP:V? "Marc's distinctive high school mascotte collection" (two of the four sources) is not really a "reliable source" for our purposes (and the mascotte is quite trivial anyway): then we have one bary notable alumnus mentioned in his obituary in the local newspaper, and the school website (again not a secondary source per WP:V). So your "ample sources" are one local newspaper article from 1955. Fram 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, they're not directory articles. They're stubs. Please reference the policy that says that stubs should not be on Wikipedia. In fact, to quote the guideline, a stub's "main interest is to be expanded, and that thus it ideally contains enough information to give a basis for other editors to expand upon". This is exactly what these articles do. The school website verifies the existence of the school, and that's all that's necessary for a stub. -- Necrothesp 19:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: being a school is nothing remarkable. If there are no other verifiable reasons for inclusion (and not trivial ones, like having students, a uniform, a mascotte, a nickname, a motto, and regular inspections), if the school is not remarkable among schools, then why should we have an article for it? The only "category" of articles that merit semi-automatic inclusion for me are towns (villages, cities, ...): all other subjects need to be verifiably remarkable, exceptional, noteworthy, notable, ... withing their "category": for people to have an article, they need to be remarkable people: for companies, they need to be somehow noteworthy: for schools, the same reasoning should apply. Being a school is not more noteworthy than being a post office, nursery or library, and I wouldn't want articles for all those either. Fram 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many of the above. --Myles Long 16:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. the mascotte also makes it notable. Audiobooks 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:SCHOOLS having been rejected. Accurizer 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I must be missing something here. How does the rejection of WP:SCHOOLS mean we should keep this article? JoshuaZ 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply There has been no community consensus to delete schools. Accurizer 19:19, 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 speedily deleted by RobertG. MER-C 11:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Voser Muschi[edit]

This person appears to have appeared in a few movies, but there are no sources. Peter O. (Talk) 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no ghits and the German one appears to have been deleted already. I just checked the history and it's vanity - three of the five edits were by a user called Sheila Voser. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-attack}}, so tagged. The German movie titles are of a pornographical nature; "Muschi" refers to the female genitalia. Sandstein 09:38, 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 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Island national football team[edit]

Contested Prod, and a contested prod based on good reasoning, rather than just the removal of a prod tag by someone unhappy with the issue. Simply put, there is no evidence that Norfolk Island (a non-sovereign dependency of Australia) has a national football team. The best that can be found are links such as this, which list a "Norfolk Island Soccer Association" and then have no results when that link is clicked and this, which seems to assume that a team exists, however it isn't listed in any of the other pages of the site, most importantly here, where one would expect members and non-members to appear. Additionally, having spent a considerable amount of time on the island myself, I'm willing to lay odds that there might be a social/club competition but nothing more than that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-verifiable, possible hoax. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wishful thinking, part of a Non-FIFA Football fan project. I swear that something like VIVA World Cup was deleted already? --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally connected to the refernce above, primarily use for junior sport, so really has no references at all.Qaanaaq 07:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Pan Gerwazy 10:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the one who de-prodded it, since there is some evidence for its existence, but the evidence is sparse at best, and even if it exists it is probably non-notable. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Norfolk Island is not affiliated with FIFA or the relevant regional football body and never has been. To the best of my knowledge, a Norfolk Island team has never competed in an international competition and there are no sources cited in the article indicating otherwise. They don't even participate in any soccer competitions of note in Australia. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the more I think about it, the only thing they could participate in would be Commonwealth Games matches, and they don't even play Soccer there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - There are plenty of unrecognized national teams that play against other unrecognized national teams, and many of them have articles which are vigorously defended. NF-Board teams (which are generally not affiliated with their regional associations) are certainly allowed articles on Wikipedia. There are several teams which are not even NF-board members which have articles as well. As long as they play against other teams which regard themselves as "national", and this can be verified, it's usually enough to keep their articles. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that the games mentioned in the infobox were actually played? If so it may be worth investigating. if not, Delete. Some info could possible go into Football (soccer) on Norfolk Island -- Chuq 06:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A cursory Google for their "first international" against the Kerguelen Islands team (itself a redlink and its nominal "national federation" being up for AfD as a hoax) comes up blank, with the exception of Wikipedia of course :} BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most likely a hoax. I doubt they bother with any sporting tournaments in the Kerguelen Islands... QazPlm 11:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:HOAX is most probable. I haven't found any evidence from reliable sources. That's my take on it. --SunStar Net 11:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Roisterer 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax per lack of evidence otherwise. As a side note, I did not think Norfolk Islands was its own country, and hence that it would not have a "national" team for any sport. Ansell 09:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Plenty of "non-nations" have national teams. If they play on the international scene (against recognized and/or unrecognized nations), and act like a national team, they're considered national. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, Norfolk Island competes under its own flag at the Commonwealth Games, where its Lawn Bowls team has achieved some degree of success. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while Norfolk competes in its own right at some international sporting events, I'm fairly sure that soccer isn't one of them. Add the lack of sources and it should make the choice easy. Lankiveil 05:11, 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 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hammer[edit]

seems to be an german fake for advertising purposes, see [8] (german) and see the faked video [9] --Seewolf 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An acquaintance of mine confirms that the advertising company for which they work is responsible for the creation of this fictional character for advertising a product. --Suzan Eraslan 17:03, 16 October 2006

  • Speedy delete. Fiction presented as fact; possibly original research. -Amatulic 22:48, 19 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:49, 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 11:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Eye[edit]

Autobiographical with problems with verifiability (one cited source was written when the subject was two years old and the other is "some violinist's homepage") and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Originally prodded, but author apparently contested, see talk. Not speedied due to claim of notability. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is part autobiography and part, I suspect, nonsense. I draw your attention to the following quote to be found towards the bottom of the article: The other part of the time, William advises President Bush on foreign affairs. Also, I note that the only source for this article was apparently written by a certain 'Ellisya Eye' in 1992 which, if the article is to believed, would mean that William Eye would only have been 2 years old when it was written! Attempts to follow the link to the alleged website also prove futile as apparently it has been closed for 'essential maintanance.'--Edchilvers 12:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you have to admit it's funny Zemrae 19:26, 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It's either a really bad vanity page about a 16 year old kid who plays some instruments or, more likely, it's a hoax. --The Way 06:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "his musical journey is still quite nubile"!!!! Clearly non-notable. Information about advising Pres Bush has now been removed (Obviously a state secret, but explains a lot about US foreign policy!!) Emeraude 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupid. Danny Lilithborne 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a hoax. The subject is 16, and scores no relevant Ghits (most of the hits seem to be about Prince William's eye problem). Someone's just trying to have some fun ;-), I suspect. Delete, all the same. Ohconfucius 03:50, 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. W.marsh 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GENCO Supply Chain Solutions[edit]

  • Delete WP:CORP States multiple NON-TRIVIAL published works. All of those links certianly appear to not only be trivial, but just reprints of press releases from the company. Vic sinclair 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think what Vic Sinclair is trying to say is that the news articles are reprints of press releases, a common-enough occurance in newspapers by the way, not because they are biased but because they republish chunks of well-written press releases when they need to find filler articles in a hurry. When they do this they will not put a reporter's name next to the story as you've seen. I agree that the newspapers are not trivial but the fact that they are not national papers or major business papers coupled with the fact that the articles have no real depth suggest they are not enough to justify GENCO's inclusion. Strong Delete. --Saganaki- 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUnless an article in a respected newspaper is acknowledged as a press release and there is an accusation that it is, that is an accusation not in good faith. Non-national newspapers are allowed under WP:CORP. Besides, one of them is a reprint of an Associated Press (non-press release) article and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a reputation of investigative reporting. --Marriedtofilm 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my view its not an accusation of bad faith, but that's just my view and I'm sure the user can speak for himself. As for the debate regarding deletion, my proposal stems from the fact that we have a badly written article, lack of sourcing, POV, etc and perhaps we can agree - marginal media coverage at best. (Note that I am making no assumptions about the quality of any of these new sources, but they all, associated press included, republish press release chunks at some time.) That's why I think its simply a company I would not expect to read about in an enclopedia.Saganaki- 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it's a lousy article that DOES look like a press release. I'm just going by whether the company qulifies for an article (per nomination) and if it stays (not likley it seems), it needs a re-write. --Marriedtofilm 01:42, 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement delete. So they're a logistics solutions provider? I'd like three with anchovies, please. If you can't describe what your business does in plain English, and write this sort of bollocks instead, you don't deserve an article. The History section is better, but fails to establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Smerdis of Tlön on this one. Nothing in the article suggests notability over any other "solutions" company and the references I've checked out seem to be insignifcant articles that do not establish much beyond the fact the company exists, which is not notable. (Incidentally, further to the above discussion on reporters using press releases: they frequently do put thier name to them. I have even seen a letter I wrote to a paper printed word for word with a headline and a reporter's byline. Basically, reporters tend to laziness, and I would always be wary of accepting anything from a newspaper as verifiabilty on its own.) Emeraude 21:56, 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 is already mentioned at The Triptych, anything further can be merged. W.marsh 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Triptych Deluxe Edition[edit]

I added the deletion tag because the album is already covered in depth in the original album's article (The Triptych). Re-released albums traditionally aren't seen as important enough to warrant an article all by itself, and I certainly think that's the case here. Anyone feel differently? Roofi's Publicist 03:57, 15 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Otherwise it just gets silly, and here's an example of what could happen. I have an original (UK) Beatles Revolver album. It got scratched, so I replaced it in late 1970s and the replacement was German. I have since bought the CD. That's 3 copies (ain't I been ripped off!), all slightly different but easily covered in one single article. The important thing is the title - any minor differences are easily covered in the same substantive article, because, quite simply, I will look up Revolver and not Revolver-CD or Revolver (German pressing) or..... Emeraude 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Deserves a one or two sentance note in the parent article, not a completely new article. --Jayron32 05:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or merge if anyone cares enough to. Sandstein 06:21, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Vaz[edit]

Unsourced article, only claim to notability seems to be appearing on a game show. On the other hand, there do seem to be other participants in this show with Wikipedia articles. The article is attracting a lot of dubious edits, some of which I have removed. I suggest deletion on grounds of lack of verifiability of most details. gadfium 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Vaz is a guy with a notable game-show presence. He was always riveting to watch in his black shirt and tie. I say, keep him.--Alanjj 11:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I google searched "Vik Vaz" and most of the information in the article seems accurate. That "desi Ken Jennings" sentence seems like a dubious claim and i have edited it out. Gillain, the creator of the article, should source it since it seems relatively easy to do. I disagree with deleting this article given that many other contestants on Jeopardy! (and other game shows) seem to be listed as well. Its analogous to other minor show biz personalities in Wikipedia in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.106.218 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 October 2006
    • I suspect that your idea that Wikipedia have an individual article for every Jeopardy! contestant that there ever was will gain little support. Uncle G 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the user is making the point that excluding one minor showbiz personality while letting other Jeopardy! contestants who are hardly household names (Bernie Cullen? Eddie Timanus? Tom Walsh? Niko Martinez?, etc.) remain in Wikipedia is somewhat arbitrary and certainly gets into a discussion of where the notability line is for minor showbiz personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-17 06:56:20
        • Then xe is making the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument. Hint: The assumptions underpinning the argument are false. Uncle G 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • reply To expand on Uncle G's point a bit, if you think that another article is worthy of deletion, then nominate it for AfD. There are thousands of deletable articles here on WikiPedia. We can't get to them all right now. Therefore, the existance of another deletable article does NOT make this article keepable. If other VERY similar articles have SURVIVED previous AfDs, you might be able to claim precedence; however, merely citing other articles you think might be unworthy of keeping as a justification for keeping THIS one is entirely faulty logic. This is a discussion of THIS PARTICULAR article. What about THIS ARTICLE makes it either keepable or deletable. Provide evidence within the confines of THIS ARTICLE to back up your point one way or the other.
  • Is there a clearly defined line that excludes BOTH Article X and Article Y? I assume this is the point of the fallacious claim and while perfectly reasonable to remove this article as non-notable if there is, it is NOT reasonable to argue that this is a rules-based (rather than arbitrary) decision unless there is a way to show that the notability criteria exclude the entire class of significant Jeopardy! winners (the exception for this Jennings guy is somewhat questionable)...As it stands, until some clarity on this central point is present, I disagree with deleting it or any of the other hundreds of tv show entries.
  • I agree that the facts of this article stand on their own and the entry fits within the general entries of minor personalities. Also, as strange as the condition may sound, Vik is a spokesman for TMS, a very serious matter. Happy to add external links about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.69.35 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 October 2006
  • Delete Game show contestant who did well, but not so well that he became a household word a la Ken Jennings. Let's face it, folks: dozens of game shows air every single day all around the world. In the US, there's even a channel just for game shows. Some people lose, lots of people win. We can't have articles on 'em all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and Starblind Bwithh 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm searching Lexis-Nexis does reveal a surprising number of results of media citations for "Vik Vaz" and he does pass the "Google" test (yes, i realize this is not a consensus test yet) with a variety of diverse entries about him. I will add references within the next day or two but I still disagree that this entry fails the notability criterion given the reality that successful gameshow personalities and minor celebrities receive such significant levels of public attention in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-17 06:56:20
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 04:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind Vyse 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ken Jennings is arguably now the most well-known contestant from Jeopardy!, so I wouldn't like to compare Vik Vaz with Jennings. But I nominated another contestant for deletion in August, and by final standing in the Tournament of Champions, Vaz is more notable than him. I've created a post at Talk:Jeopardy!#Notability of Jeopardy! contestants for further discussion. I'm neutral for this AfD at this moment. Tinlinkin 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject meets none of the WP:BIO guidelines. There are very, very few game show contestants that meet notability requirements. Ken Jennings is one of the only I can think of off the top of my head just due to the sheer volume of media attention he got at the time of his run on Jeopardy. In fact the people mentioned by the anon above are all of rather dubious notability and may not warrent articles per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete um, nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources anyone? --Jayron32 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Just winning games on the show itself does not make one notable; one must transcend the boundaries of the show, have people talk about you at the water cooler, etc., in order to be notable enough for Wikipedia (like Ken Jennings, Frank Spangenberg, Chuck Forrest, Brad Rutter, Eddie Timanus, etc.) -- and Vik Vaz definitely did not have that happen. To 70.112.136.9 -- if Nico Martinez has an article, I'll be sending it to AfD immediately. He has less notability than Vaz. Andy Saunders 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until/unless Andy Saunders' rule is approved by the rest of the commenters. Vaz in fact got much media attention in our area of the country (East and Central Texas) but I agree he did not transcend the show to any significant extent (and definitely not even in the same league as Jennings' level of exposure). However, the Saunders rule has the problem that Jennings would be the only contestant worthy of Wiki since I can't find any real evidence that the others you mention were notable (ie Spangenberg, Forrest, Eddie Timanus, etc.) outside of the Jeopardy/quiz show context. In fact, there are tons of minor celebrities (or politicians even) who don't really spark water cooler conversations or in any way transcend their very limited entertainment niche. To help get to a consensus, I will go with the mass opinion on this if everyone thinks that subjective water cooler standard is fair and agree to the multiple deletions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: The rule of which I cite has been approved, per se, by previous commenters in previous AfDs, such as Tom Walsh, David Madden, Brian Weikle, and Craig Westphal . FYI: Frank Spangenberg broke records. So did Jerome Vered. Eddie Timanus created a media firestorm and a ratings spike in 1999 during his run due to his disability. Brian Weikle and Tom Walsh also broke records. Andy Saunders 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm according to your standard Timanus should stay then but I don't see how the records of Weikle, Walsh, etc. necessarily helps your rule since no doubt Jeopardy or any other show has innumerable records that are held by a many different contestants, most of whom are probably very obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.136.9 (talk • contribs)
        • By citing the previous standard, that does not mean I am in 100% agreeance with the standard; I am just citing the standard that other contributors to past AfDs have used. In fact, I would probably lean towards deleting both the Walsh and Weikle articles if they re-appeared on AfD (though I think that some sort of catch-all article encompassing the gray area of tenuously notable champions would be ideal, in this case. With any new articles that come up, they'd simply be merged and redirected into the catch-all article.). Andy Saunders 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another suggestion a friend made about this was that why doesn't everyone just agree to a numerical standard? Say 100 grand or any figure that would put a gameshow contestant in the top 100 or so game show winners amongst Americans. It might be easier than arguing about the nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources standard or the google standard, etc. While it would put in quite a few people who don't really achieve much notability, at least it would be an objective standard.
      • reply We have a standard. It is: multiple, nontrivial references in reliable sources. All other arbitrary standards or guidelines are inadequate as being too unreliable as standards. All other guidelines, if applied, either include obviously unnotable subjects, or eliminate from consideration otherwise highly notable subjects. We don't have any evidence that this guy meets the basic notability baseline of NONTRIVIAL coverage in MULTIPLE, and RELIABLE sources. --Jayron32 22:22, 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 despite low participation, as the article's an A7 and a borderline G11 speedy candidate. —Cryptic 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercantila[edit]

Spam for an online business directory - shopping site that fails WP:Corp Nuttah68 17:00, 16 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, KrakatoaKatie 04:56, 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestler's Court[edit]

A backstage element of professional wrestling. While it appears to be verifiable, I don't think it is notable. A google search gets 180 hits [14]. This just isn't notable for WP. Tony fanta 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled, so if any book that was ever published makes mention of any term, that it is automatically notable for an article? Something doesn't seem right about that. The google hits show that outside of a few pro wrestling boards, this term isn't used in the mainstream. Tony fanta 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only the ones in "non-trivial published works." You agreed in your nom that the article is verifiable, so it would be contradictory to suggest that the book is otherwise. All I'm saying that a Search engine test is not intended as the sole proof against notability. The book, the Savage interview and the accounts in the Wicks, Toland, and Mailhot articles, (which admittedly could be added to the article,) provide for the basic test of "multiple, non-trivial published works." Remember, just because an article's scope is limited doesn't mean it can't be included in Wikipedia. Nobody's saying that Qubit Field Theory should be deleted because it's only notable to quantum physicists. --RoninBKTCE# 04:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty stupid argument. An element is quantum physics is far more notable than a little piece of a fringe topic like pro wrestling. That's all I need to say. Tony fanta 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But by your logic, the quantum physics article is less important, because it gets less Ghits (150) than this article. --RoninBKETC 18:14, 17 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could use a little cleaning up, but it is something in the US's largest wrestling promotion, and that establishes notability. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but I have no idea where it would go. Not kangaroo court though, that's about something else. FrozenPurpleCube 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an "inside" reference and not applicable to a general reader. Therefore, at most it should be discussed in the context of whichever wrastlin' endeavors hew to it. Otherwise, it would be on par with having entries on gaffer's closet or power broker cafeteria or something. Geogre 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. TJ Spyke 20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn topic, just because a low-selling book mentions something does not gaurantee deservance of an article. Total fancruft. Cornerbock 21:28, 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. W.marsh 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of Ages[edit]

Bandcruft. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources, lack of verifiability, and I would say vanity, maybe, but don't want to be nasty. Fails WP:NMG The Crying Orc 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: possible bad-faith nomination. User is nominating as many Christian Metal-related articles as possible, including Christian Metal itself. Check here. wikipediatrix 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not convinced this is a notable band, although the other claims of the nominator appear to be false. I don't personally see the encyclopedic value of articles about minor bands who have their own web site anyway. -Amatulic 23:12, 19 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep. Not famous, obviously, but they do have a basic Allmusic entry and are getting multiple reviews of their albums, even if these aren't big magazines. --Groggy Dice 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wide release CDs, multiple reviews in independant reliable sources, yada yada yada. --Jayron32 05:49, 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 CSD G12 copyvio - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Shalabi[edit]

Disputed prod, procedural nom. Verifiability is an obvious concern. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This entire article is a copyvio from one of the following links: [15] [16] and I don't really see how he's notable. However, there are an impressive amount of ghits for someone that died in 1991. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 06:56, 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. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Sheng-yen[edit]

I feel that there is no way that this article can be maintained in any proper way which is WP:NPOV or WP:V. The subject is a self-styled religious leader who claims to be a perfectly enlightened Buddha. There is no official training which can be sourced anywhere, so his claims of mastering texts cannot be seconded by any other religious authorities. The only sources are the official website of his organisation, which cannot be considered to be at all reliable or neutral (the other source available is simply a reprint of the stated info on his website for a religion report) - the only other info is a pile of attack blogs about his alleged rape of a disciple or other pages by random groups critical of his claims. So the only sources are himself, which could only lead to a hagiography of a religious leader who is already making grandiose claims. This person is very notable, but there is no way that an article could be NPOV, unless it also uses attack blogs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is ok to talk slander GM Lu, Blnguyen? All we have is pictures of Master Lu being honored at the Tibetan Monestaries in Tibet, my personal witness of Ganden Tri Rinpoche (among others) honoring Master Lu. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can you give me MahaRishi Mahesh Yogi's "verafiable" authenticity? What kind of proof do you need? You say you cannot stand that Master Lu's page is talking highly of the True Buddha School but you think its ok to emphasize a womans rediculous claim that she was rapped by him? Ok did you know that HH Kalu Rinpoche (whom I have a picture of him honoring Master Lu) was accused of being raped by an american journalist? In his Biography it lightly mentions this but does not focus on that in his webpage. What kind of "proof" do you have of Buddha even existing other than millions of followers? He is one of the most popular sects in Taiwan and an enormous benefactor of charities and was accused ONE TIME of sexual misconduct and you think this should be the focus of his bio? All of his claims of having lineage can be backed up by photographs (that have been tested for authenticity). Why dont you look up the pro TBS blogs are ask a local TBS chapter instead of having a preconcieved, close minded bias. Have some respect for people you might not agree with. Its called human decency. Because Blnguyen doesnt believe! then we should all think like him and slander who he doesnt believe in. Give me a break! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.147.126 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Keep - leader of one of the largest Buddhist sect in Taiwan. There not being any critical sources is not a reason for deletion. Living persons are not to be subjected to random attacks from blogs. If there is a real problem, it will be reported in real media. It is WP's job to report the facts that can be reported, and refrain from libelling living persons. —Hanuman Das 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - what sources do we have apart from his own organisation or self-styled-debunking blogs? None - If someone claims to be a Buddha you can't use their own website as a source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course you can report a claim as a claim. And the article doesn't say that he is a Living Buddha - it says his students revere him as such. I don't see a problem here. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, which is exactly why you place a {{NPOV}} tag on it if you feel it is not in a NPOV. T REXspeak 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Err, no, the only sources available are his own organisation or attack blogs, which leaves us with no sources that are independent per WP:V or those which do not have WP:BLP problems. If I wrote my own website claiming to be God and wrote an article myself would that be permissible? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is way too noisey. All of the sources are created by his organization like mentioned above. I could also be claiming that I am Shakyamuni Buddha's reincarnation (founder of buddhism) and create a website, write books, publish magazines, and record videos. At the end stating the reason for not being recoginzed is because no one has reached this level yet. It's funny and rediculus. The other link you should delete is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng-yen_Lu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Buddha_School Purebuddhist — Purebuddhist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - This person claims he is a Living Buddha under Buddhism without any supporting documentation and is not recognized by any other Buddhist group. True Buddha School Doctrine are based on Taoist theory, which passed on by Toaist God: Golden Mother, which Lu publically announced. (a Buddhist organization not honor Buddha Shakymuni, but honor Golden Mother) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharma777 (talk • contribs) — Dharma777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - Simply too many cover ups from the TBS followers who come to this particular article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.154.110 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep per Hanuman Das -999 (Talk) 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hanuman Das He merits a mention in Seattle Weekly, a respected publication. [17]. This can also be used to support a controversies section. A simple google search yielded this right away. Sylvain1972 20:09, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violate[edit]

Seemingly non-notable British BDSM club, article hasn't been really touched in over half a year. Proposed for deletion contested, with the argument:

Removed "Delete" tag: "Violate Glasgow" on google returns this club, and website link on article connects to club too: according to clubs web page it still meeets monthly. If nothing changes re club, entry won't need updating either, though I agree it should be expanded.

So what? If compared to SMFR (which was deleted), it is found on Google among the first hits, the external link connected to the club's official site, and the club organises events every month or every two months. Still the article was deleted. The only thing that makes Violate more notable than SMFR is its involvement in Scottish politics. I vote delete. JIP | Talk 16:38, 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, JIP
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 17:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's an obvious deletion candidate. If you search "violate" on Google, you get the verb. Ignore that, though. Is this club famous? Is it being written about outside of its niche community? Is it the first of its kind? Is it the leader in some area (nipple clamps or wet leather or something)? Are they the meanest, nicest, biggest, smallest, or any other -est? Are they in the news? Are they anything other than a club for a small segment of the population of a city? Geogre 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote yet, maybe later). Well, I did find these links that describe it as:

Don't know if that's good enough. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • I don't think coverage on a special erotica-oriented site is enough. Again comparing to SMFR, it was mentioned both on an international erotica site and in a notable Finnish newspaper (although quite small articles in both). If that is not notable enough, neither is this. JIP | Talk 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 08:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 05:41, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Thorn[edit]

Bandcruft. Not well known, no noteability, possible vanity The Crying Orc 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: possible bad-faith nomination. User is nominating as many Christian Metal-related articles as possible, including Christian Metal itself. Check here. wikipediatrix 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Quick [google search] turns up MANY notability sources. CDs are widely availible. Music is reviewed in non-trivial sources. I didn't have to look far to easily establish notability WRT WP:MUSIC. I always try to assume good faith, but the above editor may be on to something. I have fact-checked 3 of these AfDs as put forward by Crying Orc. One was non-notable, and hard to find any information otherwise. The other two, however, seem HIGHLY notable, and easy to fact check. --Jayron32 05:29, 17 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 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 regular keep. --Coredesat 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government Finance Officers Association[edit]

No assertion of notability, currently a spam article.--Francisx 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not assert notability. Vegaswikian 21:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expect I found this the same way you did (searching for "Linda Christas".) That being said, I'm going with keep under this section of WP:ORG: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source". The organization covers the entirety of the USA and Canada per here: [18] and here: [19]. This is a webpage hosted by the Canadian government that includes an active forum dedicated to the GFOA: [20]. This page refers to them as "GFOA is the professional association of state/provincial and local finance officers in the United States and Canada, and has served the public finance profession since 1906." [21]. This is a page on the University of North Carolina's School of Government page discussing them: [22]. It's pretty clearly notable. - Richfife 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I proposed this article for deletion, you make a persuasive point, and I'd like to change my vote to keep, although the stub clearly needs work.Francisx 20:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I corrected the name (Financial -> Finance). Google hits popped up to 275,000. - Richfife 21:17, 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Nominator changed his !vote to Keep. Remove the Alex Jones cruft, though--no need to start commenting on everyone who has ever "mentioned" this entity when its article is still just a substub. ergot 23:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Ergot. I have rm the Alex Jones cruft. Brimba 04:50, 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 Speedily deleted as obvious spam for non-notable business, per WP:CSD G11. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Creations - Fine Jewelry & Diamond Center[edit]

Delete due to lack of any WP:RS indicating notability of this store per WP:CORP; WP:NOT the Yellow Pages; possibly advertising. --Kinu t/c 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 11:58, 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. --Coredesat 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NitroTracker[edit]

Advertisement posing as an article. No evidence given of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE criteria. SubSeven 20:59, 16 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:32, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubersite[edit]

Unfortunately this site has lost a lot of its Alexa popularity as it has consistently dropped pretty well below average for notability of a website. The page is filled with biases, unverifiable information, and is a relatively frequent target for vandalism. Please let me know your opinions. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to edit out the bias here and there and I'm not so sure I agree with you saying unverifiable, but there is regular vandalism or at least bad editing and I agree that Uber is in decline. I've been a member of Ubersite for a long time and I'd like to see the article remain, but unless someone prooves its notability in some other way I have to agree that based on its alexa ranking it shouldn't be here. Restepc

  • Delete NN. Anomo 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site is still pretty well-used, with several thousand users. That so many have come to Wikipeia is part of the proof of its worthiness. If we all take it seriously, this can be a valuable, informative article. D prime 01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty well-used" is not proof of notability. Please consult WP:WEB. Also, please do not remove the AFD tag from this article. Thank you. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:28, 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Google test, badly. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC
    • There has to be something funky about the results Google is giving. I don't know what results you got on that first search, but I got 164K hits. After adding another filter to exclude the site's own results, I still got 36K hits. Neither of those counts strikes me as an obvious flunk of the Google test, so I presume you must have gotten some much lower number. As for the second search, it's telling me that Ubersite has ZERO inbound links, but that can't be right. For one thing, it should be showing an inbound link from the Wikipedia article! It has a link, and calling up the cached page confirms that the version Google has includes the link. Also, you'd have to believe that NONE of the Wikipedia rippers took the Ubersite entry (or that all who did took some version that didn't have the link). Thus, those results have to be considered unreliable due to some quirk of Google. --Groggy Dice 17:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung Qaanaaq 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. -- Merope 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil São Paulo Interlagos Mission[edit]

Delete due to WP:RS indicating why this mission is any more notable than the scores listed here. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information seems to apply, and the article appears to be vanity for the "people who served" section, based on the edit history. --Kinu t/c 05:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Pure vanity and the user who keeps editing out the deletion tags is up for blocking due to recreation of vanity articles. Gdo01 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also included: the user has created a duplicate page at Brazil Sao Paulo Interlagos Mission (note the spelling difference, sneaky eh?). --Kinu t/c 05:55, 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. Taking the heavy meat weight into account, it's still 2-to-1 in favor of deletion with the 1 side having pretty poor arguments. "A college newspaper has published it a couple times" is pretty weak support for notability and I couldn't verify its truthfulness anyway. If better sources can be found, re-post. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Loves Crappy Movies[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

The artwork is good, but the comic fails WP:WEB, as far as I can tell. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Frankly, if Irregular Webcomic and even crap like Sokora Refugees deserve their own articles, including JLCM surely won't hurt. It may only be big as far as webcomics are concerned, but nobody really cares about Weird Al Yancovic either and there's still a page on his song White and Nerdy. I'd advise to prune the images, there are a bit too many, but otherwise leave the article as it is. And Brad, maybe try to stop mixing up art criticisms and Wikipedia policy. Nobody cares how much you like the artwork anyway. --TheOtherStephan 15:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I fail to see how having an article on a "Weird Al" Yankovic single that reaches the Billboard top 10 means we also have to have unsourced articles on minor webcomics. -- Dragonfiend 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Brad -andrewI20Talk 06:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:V, WP:RS too. Wickethewok 12:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because I don't agree with WP:WEB. Wiki is an encyclopedia, nothing diserves to be left out. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. "Keep" rationale above is just plain silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB is bogus in my opinion and shouldn't be a problem. All information deserves to be on Wikipedia and even if it does increase the traffic to Joe Loves Crappy Movies (that should be expected) its still as article worthy as most webcomics out there (see SLF's keep comment below). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The comic is published in the Rutger University Newspaper as an indepent source. The creator was interviewed for Comixpedia and was reviewed by the people at Digital Strips. Also the comic is well known enough in the webcomics community to merit its inclusion in Wikiproject Webcomics. Previous Vanity issues seem to have been corrected by someone. SLF 14:53, 26 October 2006 — Stiff Little Fingers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Don't Delete - per Trevor - Joe Dunn rocks my feeble clerk world, and if you delete his Wikipedia page, then you support Jack Thomspon and all of his freedom of speech repressing actions. No one from the Digital Pimp Online site is affiliated with this Wiki page, and they are not self-promoting. This page was created by a fan who was kind enough to take the time to make it, and keep it updated. I know that, as another fan, I appreciate someone taking the time out to do that for Joe and the rest of the people who read his comics on a regular basis. Don't support Jack Thompson, and don't delete this Wiki page. 16:41, 26 October 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.60.32 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete per nom. Also, it doesn't matter whether you agree with WP:WEB or not because it is an official guideline and the criteria for which web based articles have to meet to be considered notable. TJ Spyke 20:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WEB makes it clear that it's a recommendation. Not a demand. It very much matters what we think, since it's not to be used mindlessly. --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject of article meets WP:WEB. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you read SLF's comment above, at all? --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. It should also be noted that the article was created by the author of the webcomic which borders on flagarant self-promotion. JGardner 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can prove to you that Joe did not create this article. What the hell do you people want? We can change the article instead of deleting it but everyone here is simply just giving out a link as to what isn't being followed and hoping we know what they are talking about. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 03:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the first version of the article created by the user Joe Dunn whose talk page has a biography of Joe Dunn and his webcomic. Regardless, it's not the article nor who wrote it that is the real issue -- it's the fact that "Joe Loves Crappy Movies" does not appear to be notable outside the webcomic community. The article needs to assert its notability per the guidelines in WP:WEB. JGardner 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per JGardner and WP:WEB the article now reflects and asserts its notability. The article should be kept as all matters for deletion have been resolved. If there are more reasons for deletion please post them specifically instead of a continued repeat of the original post and a link to WP:WEB. Listing just a policy is not considered a reason for deletion as listed in ILIKEIT - Just a Policy.SLF
As I posted before, the specific reason that I feel this article needs to be deleted is because it does not appear to be notable outside of the webcomic community. The recent edits concerning its notability do nothing to dissuade me from this opinion as, aside from a mention of being published "several times" in a college newspaper, they only assert its prominence from other webcomic sites such as Comixpedia and DigitalStrips.com. Has it ever been published in a national publication? Highlighted on CNN? The New York Times? USA Today? Fish and Stream magazine? To illustrate the importance of this, there is not a wikipedia article for every professional international chess player. There are articles on Garry Kasparov and Bobby Fischer, but not Alexander Riazantsev who may certainly be considered notable within the chess playing community, is certainly not internationally or even regionally notable. All I'm asking for is proof that Joe Loves Crappy Movies is more of a Kasparov than a Riazantsev JGardner 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a pretty clear WP:WEB failure. GassyGuy 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per SLF, the comic meets WP:WEB, so Keep. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Joe Dunn is a prolific artist. He frequently teams up and works with other artist/writers such as Mitch Clem, and every respected webcomic artist not only knows he is, respects his work and respects his primary webcomic, JLCM. Furthermore, Joe Loves Crappy Movies is a member of the Boxcar Comics group. Anyone that reads webcomics has heard of or been recommended JLCM. It is more than noteworthy and more than deserving. --Broken Arms Gordon 11:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! I used this when I first started reading Joe Dunn comics to get me caught up with where the stories were! This was very helpful! — 168.122.173.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: "Usefulness" is not an inclusion criterion. --Kinu t/c 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. --Improv 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Joe has a loyal fan base that has enjoyed working on the wikipedia site for his comic, and the comic itself is entertaining and informative from a critic's standpoint. Wikipedia has everything so people can find everything, I say keep it because it's not hurting anyone. --EnnuiInspired 8:26, 28 October 2006 — EnnuiInspired (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: "Wikipedia has everything so people can find everything"... no, it doesn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As for the argument that it isn't hurting anyone, please check out WP:ILIKEIT. --Kinu t/c 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Wikipedia has entries for every single pokemon. How is a webcomic a bad thing to have a record of? — 12.155.101.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • DON"T DELETE - Wikipedia needs to have entries for everything, not things or subjects it feels that should be qualified...no. Keep this entry in! — 71.228.135.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - come on, JLCM is one of my top 5 webcomics - hell, I didn't really read the others webcomics on that site. Not to mention the very unique and intelligent movies reviews that came with it. That makes it at least notable. 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — 218.208.224.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep! Joe Dunn and more relevantly Joe Loves Crappy Movies are both highly visible parts of the webcomic community. One thing to note is that guest strips done by Joe Dunn are highly sought after and found on numerous sites and span all genres of webcomics... I know that's more relevant to Joe Dunn, but in the previous comments I believe its already been proven why the entry should stay. Joe Loves Crappy Movies: popular webcomic, active member of the community, member of Boxcar Comics and "Digital Pimp", interviews with Comixpedia and Hobo Trashcan, and besides... he's just a really cool guy.Steve Napierski 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Smells like notable to me. - Hijamiefans 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: While it's nice to see Support for Joe here, please limit all votes away from just being a fan. These votes need to give a reason and cite Wikipedia policy as to why the page should me kept or removed. Please do not post personal agendas or opinions. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 17:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If it were a book of chracters, would there be deletion? If it were Leonard Maltin, would it be deleted? JLCM provides not only entertainment but reviews of current movies with periodic departures into past themed topics aka the 10 on the 10th. The stub doesn't rave about how good this site is - only that such a site exists. Already, there is precedent set by other Wiki entries on traditional comics like Peanuts, and webcomics (Sluggy Freelance for instance). Why single out THIS one for deletion? Oct 27 2006 - long time user of Wiki — 68.147.63.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Ah, but Leonard Maltin and Peanuts have had multiple, non-trival third party references, as per our policy. Incidentally, this article wasn't "singled out"--there are about a hundred and thirty articles nominated for deletion every single day. This one was the fifty-first article to be nominated yesterday. ergot 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep*- While saying that something is "only big in the webcomics community" MIGHT mean that it has little "relevance" outside of that community we should be aware of how large of a community webcomics attract. With certain sites getting thousands (If not tens of thousands) of hits everyday how can we say that they're "not notable enough"? — 72.128.31.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep*JLCM provides well thought out reviews and funny cartoons to go along with them. The idea of note worthiness is interesting and valid to keep Joe User's Homepage from being on WP. However, Joe Dunn is an established web cartoonist, with lots of support from his fan base. If a community is willing to come to the support of JLCM, then isn't that an indication that its worth keeping?72.128.31.117Prodigal72.128.31.117
  • Keep - The article itself may need to be amended to show that it does qualify for inclusion under WP:WEB (As JLF has already demonstrated), but that can be addressed easily. Just because one person thinks it "not notable" does not mean it is so. I see absolutely no reason for deletion and I hope the issue will be resolved soon.Bosque 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Bosque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep*- It's a great webcomic for the public, and Wikipedia is public. I don't really see the problem with keeping JLCM on here; as noted before it's not hurting anyone. Seriously though if this is an encyclopedia shoulden't it include all things?70.110.15.46 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Klied — 70.110.15.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through third-party, non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomo 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This isn't self-promotion, JLCM is an established webcomic with a large internet following. It's had regular updates for 2 years, and Joe Dunn has collaberated with many other authors in the past. Also, as the article states, it's been published in a paper. All together it meets the notability requirements. — 130.207.225.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - I think it's notable enough. Every Furry webcomic in existence seems to have an article, so I don't see why we would delete this one. It doesn't need to make national news to warrant an article.--Agent Aquamarine 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please start proding or nominating those for deletion when you come across them. Puerto De La Cruz 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a popular webcomic and I feel it should have it's own page. If crap like Questionable Content have enormous pages, someone with talent's comic deserves an entry..Cmedley 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known amongst people in the motion picture exhibition industry. JPG-GR 07:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the list at WP:WEBCOMIC, one would hope an article on this comic would be able to remain. JPG-GR 07:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a cite that it is well-known amongst people in the motion picture industry? My only qualm with this article is that, although nearly a dozen people have posted "keep" insisting that it is notable, no one seems to provide any evidence that Joe Loves Crappy Movies notability transcends the webcomic community as per the criteria listed in WP:WEB. Give me some evidence that one of the criterion listed there has been met and I'll switch my suggestion to Keep. The fact that other articles exist for webcomics that do not seem notable is not an argument for keeping this one; it's only an argument that there exist other candidates for deletion. JGardner 16:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per SLF early on, it was established that it's reprinted/distributed in a source independent of its creator. That meets WP:WEB. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SLF and badlydrawnjeff. Sources provided, WEB met. --Kizor 15:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The author's entry was deleted, and this webcomic has fewer than 300 unique Ghits. Many of those 275 or so are forum posts, so the comic probably isn't that well-known. It simply fails the WP:WEB criteria, despite noise to the contrary. KrakatoaKatie 06:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it bullshit that you are using Google Hits as a reasonable source of debate considering we all know how easy it is to manipulate Google. You can't determine worth/value through the subjects Google Hits. According to your argument, I can numerically prove that Sex is better than God (don't think I'd need numbers for that, but if you want them there they are). H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break to keep editing easier for everybody[edit]

  • Weak keep. This one is a tough call, for me, but I'm thinking we may as well err on the side of caution. As SLF and badlydrawnjeff mentioned, this has been published in the Rutgers paper. The comic's managed to do okay at topwebcomics.com, so it must have a decent-sized following. It is lacking a bit in reliable sources, but in my opinion we're seriously lacking guidelines/precedents when it comes to webcomic deletion. Luna Santin 12:44, 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 You can technically speedy these, per Wikipedia:Subpages. W.marsh 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navahrudak/old article[edit]

Looks like an old fork. Anything that can be merged should be merged, then this can be shown the door. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All of the information in the old article is in the current article save for the data Navahrudak adopted the Magdeburg Law, which I am finding elsewhere referenced as "1511" and "16th Century" rather than 1444. Redglasses 22:29, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dunn (webcomics)[edit]

The individual fails WP:BIO. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets criteria outlined in WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above JGardner 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page should be deleted and redirected to the page on his webcomic JLCM. Author fails all test for WP:BIO. Suggest redirect.--[[User:Stiff_Little_Fingers|SLF]] 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Kinu. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:40, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hackles[edit]

This comic fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Kizor 16:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB based on WP:RS. --Kinu t/c 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of any significance. -- Dragonfiend 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:38, 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. --Coredesat 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Song[edit]

Comic fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable webcomic (Alexa ranking 203,949). Removed speedy tag, though -- it's sat for over a day on the speedy list. Better to deal with it definitively here. NawlinWiki 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through third-party, non-trivial reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. --Dragonfiend 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:37, 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. --Coredesat 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk (webcomic)[edit]

This web comic fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Help Desk is a webcomic by Christopher B. Wright which debuted on March 31, 1996, making it one of the older webcomics on the Internet." Just needs some more specific assertions of notability. MER-C 12:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with the proviso that if the article gives evidence of having been widely read or reviewed in addition to it's age, I'd shift to a weak keep. While I respect the age, "one of the older" does not mean "oldest" or even necessarily "one of the first 100" without some citation proving it has a unique place among webcomics. -Markeer 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's hosted on Keenspot, it's originally from a popular OS/2 magazine [23], it's been reviewed on websnark [24], it's been mentioned in Infoworld [25], 21,000 google hits for Ubersoft "Help Desk" - the combination is pretty notable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable through third-party relaible sources. WP:NOT an internet guide, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 04:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having read what AnonEMouse just said, it qualifies for #1 on the list at WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", and seeing as it needs only meet one of the criteria on the list, it thus meets WP:WEB quite nicely. I'm sure if you read further into it you will find it meets other criteria for notability in that same guideline. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This article fails our official content policy of WP:V in that it is not based on "reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Even if the article did have some verifiable info from reliable sources, it would still have to meet our official policy that WP:NOT an internet guide, in that the article must "describe the [web]site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." The WP:WEB notability guideline can't be used to override official policy against writing unreliable articles on insignificant topics, and certainly not with such trivial, unreliable sources as the e-zines and webcomics fan blogs mentioned on this Article for Deletion discussion. Also, note that if any actual reliable sources for this article are found, information from them needs to be added to the article; throwing up a link on this AfD page doesn't help the article. -- Dragonfiend 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: user is the one who listed Checkerboard Nightmare. --Kizor 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this AFD is unnessecary. Even if it's not the oldest, it's still ancient. Stormscape 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per MER-C and Stormscape, this to me appears to be important, as one of the older webcomics on the internet. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This comic is at least a decade behind any claim of being one of the older on the internet. See T.H.E. Fox. -- Dragonfiend 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The difference is Help Desk is still on the Internet. Big difference. Stormscape 09:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous keepers. The strip isn't one of the very first precursors, but definitely among the first webcomics as the word is known today. --Kizor 02:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep afd listing premise has been definitively proven wrong...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per point three of the guidelines quoted here, "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." This webcomic is part of Keenspot, an independent and prestigious online publisher of webcomics. A Holy Grail for many webcomic creators, to be Spotted is to be great and notable. Canterrain 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) — Canterrain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment. I don't believe Comic Genesis (was Keenspot) to be a sufficient gauge of notability. Here are a few counter-examples: Read it and Weep, Rally Hippo, Red Haired Blue Eyed Heroine. And those are just a few pulled from the roughly 200 listed. Those three and plenty more like them are nowhere near notable. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comic Genesis may be owned by the same company as Keenspot, but it's not the same site. http://www.Keenspot.com only lists about 50 notable comics, while as you observe correctly, CG lists hundreds of non-notable ones. We even have different articles for them, take a look. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Exactly. ComicGenisis is not Keenspot nor was it ever Keenspot. It -is- owned by Keenspot as a freehosting space for webcomics. Whereas Keenspot is not a freehosting space, and is by invite only to make money. As for my single purpose possibility, it's true I've only recently created the account. But I did make contributions prior to this, particularly on other webcomic listings. Check the Ip: 72.128.126.108 Canterrain 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and MER-C. Looks to meet the WP:WEB guideline by my interpretation. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Evil Minds[edit]

Not Notable Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Gary Kirk // talk! 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Big Bang Comics. Not independently notable, but more mention can be made in the parent article. Resolute 00:34, 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, KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:36, 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 — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slavic given names[edit]

Per WP:WINAD and prior strong precedent, I have transwikied this article to wikt:Appendix:Slovakian given names, where it is more appropriate. Lists of names are not encyclopedic, but they do belong in Wiktionary, and that's where we have moved them before (e.g., see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of first names). This should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Del. Quite useless listcruft. The author seems to have confused "Slovak" and "Slavic". --Ghirla -трёп- 06:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might simply be a typo on your part, but "Slovakian" and "Slavic" aren't synonyms. This should be transwikied to "Slavic given names", unless you're sure that every single name on the list is Slovakian and not Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Serbian, Slovenian, Czech, etc. --Charlene.fic 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article itself says they're all Slovakian (Possibly all Slovak, too, but I couldn't tell). There's one section for Slovakian names, and that's the only section. Dmcdevit·t 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text is about Slovakian names only, not Slavic, and is quite lousy one. It selects those names that feel to someone to be Slavic/Slovakian/??? enough even if they are practically unused and ignores those widely used (Peter, Pavol, Ján, ...). Few female forms seem to be invented here, AFAICS. Pavel Vozenilek 16:21, 21 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, KrakatoaKatie 06:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also List of Czech given names, List of Armenian given names currently on VfD. This one is far bellow in quality. Pavel Vozenilek 14:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. If it's a carefully composed list, keep it. If it's useful to other Mediawiki projects as well, it's definitely well built. For those that are not interested in lists, they just move on the next article. -- User:Docu
  • Delete per nomination. Kavadi carrier 08:41, 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. W.marsh 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned toys[edit]

Article was previously nominated for deletion in September. The result of that discussion was to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned toys). It has since been recreated, but in a different version, so G4 doesn't apply. The article was nominated for speedy deletion by FisherQueen (talk · contribs), but the tag was removed by Musicologydreamer (talk · contribs). I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 08:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's an article about a project rather than a band (thus not a speedy) that fails to assert notability. MER-C 09:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to The Synthetic Dream Foundation. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC to warrant its own article. --Satori Son 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doing a search on the internet pulls up quite a few references, including several interviews, etc. The music is of a notably differnet style than The synthetic dream foundation, so a merger would not be appropriate. It would be like merging Graeme Revell's page with that of his old industrial band SPK. Both are notable, and by the same person, but intrinsically different. User:FinalConflict 23 October 2006 (UTC) — 68.200.110.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:03, 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 to delete. W.marsh 19:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Burlingame[edit]

Creating deletion discussion page for Jeff Burlingame because this is a non-notable author whose book is not even released yet. ArrolinStCroix 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sold on this AfD but I'd like to point out that the article most certainly does not qualify for speedy deletion. Notability is clearly asserted if firmly established. Pascal.Tesson 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is not just an author/journalist, he is also the founder of an international non-profit organization, which the one naysayer above failed to note at all. I checked out that Web site and it’s pretty prominent. A quick google of his name shows maybe a thousand or more sites where he’s mentioned. I’d keep it.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published authors of non-vanity books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to Amazon, his book has been released and in stock right now. Dar-Ape 17:47, 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 06:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Britney Spears songs[edit]

Not verified and has been marked as such since April 11 2006 without a single citation being added. Has been subject to seemingly random additions and removals, no way of knowing what's true. Nonpareility 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, 3 of these titles are registered at ASCAP with Spears as the performer[26] so its not 100% unverifiable. However, 3 titles isn't much of an article. Why not Merge the verifiable titles with her discography, as per one of the suggestions currently extant? I shan't fret if it's pulled completely tho'. Ac@osr 20:18, 17 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, KrakatoaKatie 06:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page really lacks the substance seen at Unreleased Madonna songs. Page describes itself as a confirmed/unconfirmed and is completely unsourced. I wouldn't object to recreation of the page with citations for all tracks, but the current version should go. -MrFizyx 22:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JGardner 01:29, 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 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of concept albums (themed)[edit]

What separates a themed concept album from a well-assembled record by someone with an idiosyncratic range of topical songwriting interest? This page is entirely uncited, mostly uncitable, original research, and vastly fancruft. People want their favorite artists to be intelligent, and so as fans they often slap the now near-meaningless label of "concept album" on a given work so that it seems more Important and Impressive. That is fancruft, and very usually unsupported. Not to mention non-NPOV.

Amber388 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On first look, I disagree with many of the entries but I don't disagree with the idea of the article as such, although it may be an unneccesary overlap with other articles. The word "themed" bothered me a bit but I'm aware of albums where the overriding concept was the recording method rather than the lyrical content so it's not so outlandish. An album is a concept album if the artist says it is so if there is a source available for the listed albums making it clear that the artist has made such a statement then that must stand as verification and remove any POV concerns. I don't think this requires deletion but it requires a lot of citation work. Is it worth it? I'm neutral on that.... Ac@osr 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be kept because many people like to research themed concept albums. However I would say it needs some editing and citations.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How do you determine what is and is not a 'themed-album' -- it's inherently POV and would probably qualify as original research. Pure listcruft. --The Way 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a combination of an inherently POV list, a list with very shaky criteria for inclusion which would make it hard to maintain (most surf-rock albums would be included as being about "surfing", "cars", "girls" or "surf culture", for example, and we'll leave aside the fact that most hip-hop albums are about "partying", "drugs", "girls", "money" or something along those lines) and also for having a soupçon of OR to the whole thing - I doubt that many of these acts actually believed they were making a concept album at the time, and the term almost certainly dates from later than some of these in the list, which makes it very odd. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think a list of concept albums would be worth having anyway, but this one is so bizarrely all-inclusive as to be completely meaningless. BTLizard 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per underlying POV in the articles concept and theme (pun intended). Some albums have musical style themes, some philosophical themes, and ALL of them have the theme of being what the artist wants to express in a complete album. Few musicians produce random assortments of singles after their first album. -Markeer 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The exclusion of certain well known concept albums, such as some listed in Concept Album points to POV. That article covers key albums, and Category:Concept albums covers a larger set. No need for this list. *Sparkhead 16:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Markeer. Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Making a list of albums that are concept albums but don't have a distinct storyline is inescapably POV. This is just a list of OR interpretations of records. There's already a concept albums category and an article on the subject -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this goes through, should List of concept albums (narrative) be moved back to List of concept albums? –Unint 15:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Why not? And we can also then put the few truly valid entries from the (themed) list onto that page too. Amber388 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard to define. On many pop albums, most songs are about love, but they aren't included? And all christmas albums are concept albums? / J 1982 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleet per just about everyone here :) 80.41.228.7 11:09, 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. --Coredesat 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex trivia[edit]

Contested prod. Original prod statement (by A Man In Black): "A lump of random things readers noticed in the show, completely unreferenced and speculative" with a prod2 (by myself): "Left over from "merge" but nothing was actually merged (duplicate info that originated on the other article), thus this article's history is not needed." Delete -- Ned Scott 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pages of just trivia simply don't belong on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 06:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Main Article. Plenty of other pages include trivia, it's useful information, and I belive the only reason this was nominated is that Man in Black has a bone to pick with trivia for some reason. Yzak Jule 06:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's got a bone to pick with it for good reasons. Trivia, by it's own definition, is not notable. Sometimes it's harmless to throw a little bit of trivia in an article, but other times it gets really out of hand, like here. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:AVTRIV. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the original prodder. Where are the references for all these highly speculative claims? Without sources, no sense dumping this on already-troubled articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete prosify and intergrate the text into other articles. Trivia doesn't deserve its own sections, let alone an entire article. Hbdragon88 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge into various articles. Pages consisting solely of trivia, even if about my favorite television series, are not necessary. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content. Combination 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An example of the worst of Wikipedia and essentially a dumping ground for people too lazy to create actual prose. Interrobamf 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. This list used to be a part of the main article, but someone took it upon themselves to create a seperate page. I believe it shoud be part of the main article, as it used to be.--Salvax T - C--22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is actually the same article the trivia has always been in. It was apart of a split and redundant article about the first season, not the original or "main" article. I removed the redundant parts and renamed the article. All the relevant trivia notes are already in place in their respective articles, there's no need for a separate trivia section. -- Ned Scott 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since we're supposed to Avoid trivia sections in articles, it can be assumed that were supposed to avoid entire articles of them. If there were separate articles for each episode, I'd say merge, but since there isn't just delete. Koweja 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Triviabloat. — Deckiller 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per AManInBlack. Cruft, OR. Bwithh 21:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Yptype 09:50, 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 don't keep this as an article. I've redirected so it's more clear what happened, and any additional information people want to merge, they can go ahead and do (it looks like most has been merged but not all) W.marsh 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Best Belfast City Airport connections[edit]

Redundant with info on Belfast City Airport page. It is just a copy of the destinations list. WP:NOT? DB (talk) 23:25, 17 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and anything not already listed at Belfast City AIrport can be merged. Emeraude 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect or Delete Either way, we don't need this article, for all of the reasons already listed --Jayron32 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete. The airport isn't large enough to have its own, seperate destinations page, and there is no real additional information here.Flymeoutofhere 14:04, 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 if anyone wants to move this to commons, I can help if you need access to the content. W.marsh 00:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X-plane/gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 09:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to project space, if an appropriate WikiProject exists. These sorts of pages are useful for building an encyclopedia, but aren't useful in article space. —ptk✰fgs 09:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move per above. MER-C 12:18, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a gallery. Interrobamf 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful and attractive summary of interesting aircraft ➥the Epopt 14:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave alone. I don't think it should be deleted, but I don't particularly know what we should do with it either. Unless we think users are going to type this in expecting an article, I don't see why we have to be particularly strict about namespaces either. Cynical 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move please. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:17, 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. W.marsh 01:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Arc de Triomphe photographs[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Better suited to a category over there, if it doesn't exist. MER-C 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki belongs in commons.Noroton 02:31, 19 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:19, 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, but transwiki to Commons first. --Ezeu 18:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie libraries image gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Commons. Best suited to over there. MER-C 12:25, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:19, 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 transwiki to Commons & delete. --Ezeu 18:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clark College (Washington)/gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Commons. Best suited to over there. MER-C 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Some of Wikipedia's pages of additional images predate the Commons. Strong keep until/unless all is also availible on Commons. (I think transfering useful material to Commons would be much better practice than proposing deletion right out the bat for such material.) -- Infrogmation 13:52, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:19, 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 transwiki request tag added. W.marsh 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Crystal Palace[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Commons. Best suited to over there. MER-C 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to commons, but don't delete unless that's done.Noroton 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki — to the commons as per the others. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 02:14, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:19, 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. W.marsh 23:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election, 2004 map gallery[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Commons. Best suited to over there. MER-C 12:25, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:21, 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. W.marsh 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of 1913 Great Lakes storm images/Weather maps[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki or delete per nom. MER-C 12:34, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:22, 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. All of this appears to exist on commons. W.marsh 01:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Charles II of England[edit]

Wikipedia is not Commons Zgo!! 10:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, less complete than the Commons page, and there's not really any room to add these to the main Charles II article. —ptk✰fgs 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki'. Delete only if/when everything of possible use here is availible on the Commons. -- Infrogmation 13:41, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:22, 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. W.marsh 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Seagull and Seamew[edit]

Fails to assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference of 'notability' - more to be added soon. User:Niall1798 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly I would also have contested a prod on this. I am not saying the original nominator showed bad faith, merely that the subject is clearly notable -- Simon Cursitor 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but have just copyvio'd this as part of the text is a direct lift from the external link QuiteUnusual 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text not directly lifted, but I've edited this section anyway Niall1798 10:34, 19 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:35, 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 deleted per A7. -- Where 00:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 Indigo[edit]

In accordance to the policy of popularity and wether this article is worthy, this may need to be removed untill further development. Redkane 09:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's actually a case of whether the subject satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. The article cites no sources, and contains no discography for this duo. The official web site contains zero textual content and is effectively blank. From what the article alone tells us, this duo is nothing more than the MySpace equivalent of a garage band. Researching, I find that the duo has released one album, Sedanstrasse on the Zottl Entertainment label. (This contradicts the article. But the article is unsourced.) It has also performed at one festival, and has been included on a couple of "newcomer" lists. I haven't found any people writing anything about the duo or any charted hits. Uncle G 14:12, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Known in german speaking part of the world. IA (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of WP:MUSIC notability is given. Kusma (討論) 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no notability asserted, so tagged. (I can't parse the sentence fragment "perform thought Germany and Europe", but if it refers to touring, this is...unlikely). Failing this, delete for failing WP:MUSIC and being unsourced. Sandstein 23:09, 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. W.marsh 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobovivo[edit]

Delete non-notable video download service. Corporate vanity page. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, spamvertising. NawlinWiki 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per G11, Alexa ranking of 2,520,025 [27], 240 unique Google results [28] (most of which appear to be pseudo-advertisement plugs from small websites or results from youtube or blog sites). Reads like an advert - and however dodgy Alexa ranks may be, I'm struggling to see how such a high Alexa rank indicates a notable operator in niche-market broadcasting. QuagmireDog 17:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by User:Mobovivo on August 22, no attempt to provide citations even after a month has passed. Unleash the wikipedians of war cos [29] the War Chief says so. QuagmireDog 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duh me, article fails WP:CORP, issues arising from WP:V and WP:RS also arise - apart from the once citation in the article, all other web-sites seem trivial (I'm not convinced the citation is non-trivial either, but it's a cut-above the rest). QuagmireDog 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links that show on a google search are actually from press coverage of the company, not as suggested pseduo-advertisements. The significance of MoboVivo as a download service in Canada is that it is the first and currently only such service making a bit of historical claim - perhaps even encyclopedic - in a world of technology culture anyway. As compared to other much bigger services which have entries on Wikipedia (Apple ITunes, Google Video) this service works outside of the US and not just in one country. This in itself is noteworthy - maybe encyclopedic. This page is no more corporate vanity that those sites cited like iTunes and Google Video, I suggest that if MoboVivo could be edited to sound less like an advert and note the significant fact that US only services, however large, should be noted as such - US only and to do so one must mention those companies with broad appeal and relevance beyond the US.

  • Comment Sorry, but I'm not seeing a mass of appropriate press, at least not from my own google search ^ - after the first few pages it drops away into random snatches of text from blogs. Of the sites remaining, most are psuedo-adverts - filler 'news' splashed with company quotes, what appears to be press-releases and pricing information. WP:CORP and WP:V are what I'm basing my arguments on.
There's nothing wrong in a company drumming-up some business and getting attention, but we're a tertiary source taking information from reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS). The competitors mentioned stand or fall on their own merits, exclusively of the inclusion or lack of presence of competitive services. If Mobovivo is a genuinely innovative service, it will undergo critical analysis from the press, from which we make articles. Articles that read like adverts are a concern, which is why I raised it, particularly with other circumstances to take into consideration. However, articles can be cleaned-up, that in itself is neither a reason to delete the article nor something which you should spend time trying to rectify during this discussion. In retrospect, my 'speedy' suggestion was over-zealous, if nothing else Mobovivo does not resemble the kind of subject mentioned in the 'call to arms' cited, and a full discussion is deserved. QuagmireDog 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your right about the press coverage -google search results in a lot of non press releases. This was not the case a few months ago - for better or worse. Going through these a bit closer and knowing the industry press outlets here are a few links that show up in a google search that show third party reviews. These are the ones that don't just re-hash a company press release.

http://www.canada.com/topics/finance/story.html?id=97381447-3058-4c99-99ab-459fb2e188e3 http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles07250603.asp http://www.worldscreen.com/archivenews4.php?filename=mobo040606.htm http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=53c7b897-8d33-483a-9c11-767dba2f7ce4&p=2 http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=4&article=29888 http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9396/ http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mobovivo_readies_tv_show_content_for_canadian_ipod_owners/ http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20060501/mobovivo.html

Although this article is clearly a work in progress (as is the company, apparently), removing it when the articles posted regarding iTunes and Google Video (among other U.S. "big media" entries) are permitted to subsist smacks of corporate favoritism and being a big bully to a small Canadian company. It looks to me like there are enough mentions in the public press (e.g. canada.com is one of Canada's biggest news sites) to provide some confirmation of the details, so I would let it be and remove it from AfD consideration.


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 13:49, 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, KrakatoaKatie 07:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an advertisement. YouTube this isn't. Above press mentions are of the company talking about itself, hence still does not satisfy WP:CORP. Kavadi carrier 08:38, 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. W.marsh 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Spectator[edit]

This is the local paper of a very small town. There is no relevance historically. flipjargendy 15:14, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a longstanding, prominent local paper of record that justifies retention. Now that I've located this article, it has been added to relevant categories to ensure that it will be further expanded and improved as part of Wikiproject:New Jersey, a comprehensive effort to expand the details and fill in the holes of all things New Jersey. Alansohn 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real, edited newspaper. It's not a coupon circular, it has reporters and editors and everything. Definately notable --Jayron32 06:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Merge to Somerset County, New Jersey would be good. flipjargendy 22:26, 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 Redirect to Tsuen Wan District. I believe licensing issues prevent transwiki to wikitravel. Yomanganitalk 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panda Hotel[edit]

Bringing to AfD instead of deleting on expired prod. Is it notable? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Insert a mention at Tsuen Wan District. It seems to narrowly meet WP:LOCAL but there doesn't seem to be enough verifiable info at this point. I don't see too many mentions of it online, but I'll bet there are more independent sources for it apart from English language ones. Maybe if someone created a better version on the Cantonese Wikipedia, enough info could eventually be gathered to support a separate article here. Maybe not. Kafziel Talk 18:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel. The Panda mural doesn't seem that notable. Other than that, I don't see how it's anything but another non-special hotel. --Marriedtofilm 04:38, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Kafziel: article exists in zh wikipedia: zh:悅來酒店 (though that one doesn't have sources either). I wouldn't mind a redirect to Tsuen Wan District. ColourBurst 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikitravel. The aticle does not assert the hotel being notable. If we were to keep this article, it would be used to jusify keeping every hotel that had a unique feature. Vegaswikian 18:39, 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. There's nothing to merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Dvorsky[edit]

Contested speedy. There is now a claim to notability but it is not verified. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Samorost. The game he created is notable, but unless he created other notable games (and he hasn't, as far as I can tell), a separate article isn't warranted until he does. -Amatulic 22:50, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Proper writing of the name is Jakub Dvorský. The game is not known inside the Czech Republic (no mention in Czech language anywhere online and, what I remember offline) but maybe it caught out abroad. Pavel Vozenilek 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the 'game' (it's actually more of a puzzle) has some fame online, but the creator doesn't require a separate article. -- Bpmullins 14:28, 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. W.marsh 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tiny[edit]

Non notable character in a book series. Crufty. RoyBoy 800 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I dont know what you're talking about when you say non notable. He is pulling the strings that make the whole series what it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy mci (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 October 2006.
Notable within the series, but is already covered in another article, where the character could be covered perfectly well. Edward Wakelin 18:26, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. James68 12:02, 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 verification with reliable sources provided. --Coredesat 05:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G0y[edit]

This isn't a particularly notable subculture that exists within the gay community. Although the term is loosely attested by a few Google hits (but you'll find far more for G0Y as the first half of a Canadian postal code range in central Quebec), it appears to be a non-notable website trying to build a subculture around a neologism. Fails both WP:NOR and WP:NEO, and skirts the edge of WP:DICDEF, to boot. Was previously AFD'd (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G0y), but this version is at least different enough from the first one to not call it a G4. And as for the couple of claims in the previous AFD that it's common in gay chat forums, it certainly doesn't exist in the ones I frequent, so I'd need to see some actual evidence of that. And even if the evidence can be provided, WP:NEO is pretty clear on the difference between citing examples of a word in use (which isn't good enough for our needs) and citing actual verifiable sources about the word. And as for frot, it's also a silly little neologism for a sex act that the G0y movement didn't even invent, and which already has other names in genuine use anyway. Delete both. Bearcat 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Frot. AfD requires one per article. These are seperate topics and will need to be dealt with seperately. Frot has survived AfD once before. Atom 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as well as the previous AfD at this name listed in the nomination. This still isn't well-sourced and should still be deleted. GassyGuy 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Also, check speedy criteria 4. This article is not a substancial improvement over prior deletions, and simple renames (G0yz/G0ys/G0y) appear to be an attempt to get around this problem. This same subject has been deleted before, and nothing has changed in it to make it more notable. --Jayron32 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move content to frot. --142.163.78.108 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable now, but if it becomes notable in the future take it to deletion review and may be it can be re-created. The consensus here seems to be in favour of deletion. As of today, there doesn't seem to be anything that has increased its notability. --SunStar Net 10:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --66.32.66.195 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially the self-described straight females, right? A few things to keep in mind: WP:CIVILITY dictates that it would be a good idea not to make accusations against other people expressing opinions. Another is that, when you want to keep something, it's best to address the issue in terms of WP policies, whichever are being raised. As of right now, the one in question is verifiability. The charge is that this has not received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If you can show that this is not the case, then you'll have many more people swayed than by making blind accusations. GassyGuy 06:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Z388 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is concise and true to the g0y philosophy why allow gays who are afraid of our message to delete what a large subset of guys identify with. I Personally think this discrimination by the gay community needs to stop. I see it all day long monitoring the Yahoo answers GLBT section. Keep this and let us have our space we do not try to remove the gay section. This is rediculous to even have this discussion.
What discrimination? Chances are, Anonymous, that you're White, cisgendered male and of an income that can be described as Middle or Upper Proletarian Class and you also probably "look straight". Gawd, this is like when that girl friend of mine who runs a Hairy Armpits forum was telling me about this influx of guys who feel "persecuted" by adverts in fashion magazines because a model trying to sell them colonge has a shaved body. Get over yourself! This is not about how "gays get to have their space while persecuting g0yz" -- it's about the lack of legitimate and original sources bringing the validity of this article into question. Wikipedia is not a message-board nor is it an Internet community like LiveJournal where "everybody" gets to have their say (within reason), no matter how asinine one feels another's opinions are. Wikipedia is an information website working hard to be seen as a legitimate alternative to the traditional paper encyclopaedias -- and that can't happen if every fringe-group with a a dozen yahoo! e-mail lists started claiming themselves a genuine subculture.RJ 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Frot I've recently taken an active interest in "g0y" as a subculture, but I totally agree that no, there is not enough appropriate evidence to cite as sources for this article. Of course, most guys who consider themselves "g0y" have a major persecution complex and stupifyingly elaborate conspracy theories about how the Kinsey 6 "minority", together with *feminists* (yes, feminists get blamed for a lot of their "persecution") are all somehow threatened by their masculinity and how all gay men (who aren't g0y, of course) just want to be women. Considering this, even if this article *does* get deleted, I'm sure, like, the one of them who actually understands how Wikipedia works will try and devise a way around this (again!) and, as usual, do it without citing valid sources.RJ 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G0y cant be merged with Frot, because altho they are related culturally they arent the same thing. A person who prefers frot, can still have anal sex too, whereas someone who is G0y will never have anal sex. One is a specific method of sex, the other is a philosophy opposing a specific method of sex. Not the same thing. --Haldrik 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it isn't the same thing, but it can also be argued that gay and anal sex are also topics that have only the most superficial connections, but try getting that across on any of the g0y yahoo lists. The point I'm trying to get across here is that the two topics are related AND that the topics can be merged in an effort to make G0y more relevant to certain persons.RJ 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a community of self described masculine, anti anal men built around the concept of frot. They never refer to themselves as "g0y" but the two communities are near identical. 142.163.78.108 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sorry to say that after checking thru various LGBT and Bi groups, so far no one has EVER heard of these people. In fact it has been widely suggested to me that this is either some sort of prank or perhaps a money-making scheme, (some sort of sex club/ dating service or something). While I am not ready to agree with that and will give these people the benefit of the doubt that they actually exist, I can't say that I see any evidence that this is either a "movement" or at all "notable". CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has also been pointed out that the name is a (mild) racial slur (please see Goy), which adds to the "it's probably a prank" theory. CyntWorkStuff 18:23, 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; also an apparently speediable copyvio. --MCB 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Omohundro[edit]

Does not seem to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No Newsbank or ScienceDirect links. CV here. The claim that he was the co-founder of the Center for Complex Systems Research might put him over the hump if verified, but he was only an Assistant Professor at the time, so I wonder what his actual role in the founding was. ~ trialsanderrors 23:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes. Septentrionalis 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He did appear in Unterburger, Amy L. (ed.) (1989) Who's Who in Technology (6th ed.) Gale Research, Detroit, ISBN 0810349515, according to Gale Group's Biography & Genealogy Master Index. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy available in my library. It looks as though his real notablilty may be pre-Internet. Bejnar 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His book Geometric perturbation theory in physics published in 1986 is real and is widely held in academic libraries according to WorldCat.
I can't tell if the Who's Who book is a vanity publication (looks like it from quick check). The perturbations book might be more interesting if it's a textbook. It's not much of a research publication since it only got a handful of cites (3 or 4). ~ trialsanderrors 05:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The perturbations book is not a text book. MathSciNet writes: "This book is the author's Ph.D. thesis … It is essentially a collection of loosely related essays …". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:47, 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, KrakatoaKatie 08:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bejnar. --Marriedtofilm 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep only if that can be cleaned up to look less like a resume DesertSky85451 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There are not enough sources to write an article on him. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary Notability Criteria: Nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. By definition, "Who's Who" books are ALWAYS trivial coverage, and thus unsuitable for a "keep" defense. Also, a single book publication fails the "multiple" requirement for notability. Unless we can solve these problems, he looks non-notable. --Jayron32 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He looks like just one of many accomplished individuals that exist in the world, but don't have Wikipedia bios. I don't find the Who's Who or his published thesis convincing as far as establishing the kind of notability I believe we've come to expect. By the way, the whole article is just a major copyvio, which makes this a speedy delete. --C S (Talk) 11:04, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Roselands[edit]

Shopping centre; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Fails to point out notability; it's just a shopping mall. Are we going to give every mall an article? Also, not properly sourced... only links to the malls homepage. (Although, I'm not sureNehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) how one sources a mall...) --The Way 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following nomination, a claim to notability has indeed been formulated. Would you be willing to reconsider, or do you still think this is best deleted? --Nehwyn 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep If it were notable it would be easy to source. There would be published articles on the notable aspects. For a trivial example, The Mall of America has been the subject of many articles. Dimitrii 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later references have assured me there is established notability of pioneer status and size. Thanks to Nehwyn for bringing me back to the discusion. Dimitrii 16:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like another of the dozens of articles created by Tuddy (talk · contribs).  :/ There's also a problem in that some of the major shopping mall chains are listing every single one of their stores as a redlink, which is actively encouraging people to go through and create an article on each one. I'm deleting or tagging them with {{local}} as I find them. As for this one, I recommend deletion, or merge it into the article about the parent area, per WP:LOCAL. --Elonka 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly interesting and notable article. How can it be of only local interest when people who don't live remotely nearby finds of interest? Rebecca 04:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, as it does not meet WP:CORP. If you think it does, however, please do explain how. --Nehwyn 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I count seventeen newspaper hits in a database search, so I'd say it meets the first one. That said, I vote on the basis of whether something is notable and of interest to a sizable audience, not whether it meets some finicky guideline of questionable support which I've barely heard of in my three years on this project. Rebecca 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. First, this is not a vote. Still, thanks for informing us about your opinion on Wikipedia guidelines. --Nehwyn 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, pfft. Firstly, I contend that it does pass the guideline. Secondly, since whether it does or not pass this guideline, many articles of this nature survive AfD, I'm questioning who actually supported said "guideline" in the first place. Thirdly, guidelines are not laws, which is why I'm making a case for why I believe the article should be kept on its merits. Rebecca 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questioning how guidelines are formulated is not for this page; take it to the talk page for that guideline, if you don't like it. The previous consensus on malls / shopping centres is to delete their articles. But since you contend this one does pass the guidelines... forth with the evidence, please. =) --Nehwyn 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're simply pulling claims out of thin air. There has been no such consensus to delete articles on malls and shopping centres, since they routinely either get keep or no consensus results on AfD. Rebecca 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. As precedents have it, malls are considered generally not notable. Of course, a specific claim to notability can be established for a particular mall, but malls as a category are not automatically notable (unlike, say, towns). --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whose page is that? How old is it? As can be seen by the fact that most of the shopping centre articles on AfD are currently surviving it, and look set to receive a vote of keep, trying to claim there is a consensus to the contrary is pretty stupid. Rebecca 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your opinion. That is a Wikipedia page, no user's in particular. I personally still think that shopping centres / malls are not automatically notable, and therefore their article must state a specific claim to notability. --Nehwyn 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your personal opinion. Please quit trying to claim it has some sort of consensus support when it patently does not. Rebecca 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is my opinion. But sorry, I still maintain it is in accordance with the Precedents page linked above. --Nehwyn 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Roselands is over 40 years old, was Australia's first large shopping centre of its type, was the largest in the southern hemisphere for many years, had Australia's first "food court", and we have a wonderful old image in Commons. There was a lot of text about it in Grace Bros. and Roselands, New South Wales, so maybe this article was previously merged? Anyway, I've added the above to hopefully shore up its notability a bit. I have to agree with Rebecca... the article was a bit of a mess, but I think Wikipedia stands to miss out on a lot of interesting historical information if articles like this are constantly merged and deleted under WP:CORP or G11 or whatever, rather than people cleaning up or researching. PS. is that ballot warning really necessary or justified? (I've removed it). --Canley 12:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedias are not for "interesting". Encyclopaedias are for "notable". There are things which may very well be interesting, but that are not notable, and hence do not belong on Wikipedia. And notability must be referenced, not vouched for, so (according to guidelines) multiple, independent, non-trivial references are needed to establish notability for this shopping centre. Can anyone provide them? --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Canley has given you five very good reasons why it is notable, including at least one that should be indisputable (largest in the Southern Hemisphere for a long period). There is a very clear difference between believing that something that should be deleted and making a logical case for it and simply being querulous, and you're well and truly in the second category at the moment. Rebecca 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I have provided "multiple" (2), "independent" (local govt and trade association) and "non-trivial" (see previous) references, and that's just online ones. So what's the problem? I don't think "all shopping malls should be kept", and I don't think they should "all be deleted or merged". I think this one, as is stated in the intro, is verifiably notable (historically, culturally and commercially) on its own merits, and these are backed up by the references.
Notability is too subjective and vague to be policy not guideline. See above where Dimitrii has cited the Mall of America as a notable shopping precinct which is the subject of many articles... not a great example unfortunately as the article only has one reference! WP:POINT aside, no one's going to nominate that for deletion, are they?
Can you give me a reason why you're placing a ballot warning at the top of the AfD although there is no evidence of anyone trying to shore up support for the article? Is it something you do as standard or is it because Rebecca said she was "voting" keep? --Canley 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the ballot warning was because and editor expressed the idea that this page is for "voting" (a common misconception about AfD). Having cleared that's not the case, the warning may of course go. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Care to expand on your motivations? --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, of the two references that have been added to the article after this nomination, one is about the Roselands suburb, not the shopping centre. The other one I think is legitimate indeed. --Nehwyn 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference contains information in the shopping centre, and is thus used as a source to back up claims in the article made about that shopping centre. You're verging seriously close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Rebecca 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing in a debate page. If you feel that is disruptive to Wikipedia, you can of course report it to RfC user. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing this article is notable enough to keep. You had stopped to the downright irrational in order to get the article deleted at all costs - trying to strike out a reference on the basis that it was "about the Roselands suburb"", despite the fact that it referenced many of the articles claimed. This is where, IMO, you started to cross the line from discussion into disruption. Rebecca 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you think my behaviour is disruptive, feel free to report it to User RfC. --Nehwyn 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The City of Canterbury page is about the Roselands suburb, if that's what your referring to. Did you actually read it? The shopping centre is specifically referred to in some detail in the 4th and 6th paragraphs of the 2nd section concerning the construction and the fire, which are the parts of the article which reference it. --Canley 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The two references you brought forth following the nomination indeed combine to back up a specific claim, that this has been the largest austral shopping centre for a period of time, and that may be reason enough to keep the article indeed. --Nehwyn 10:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep First shopping centre in Australia. I once went on a school excursion to it. Notable shopping centre. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually preceded by the Canberra Centre, but it's still very much notable. Rebecca 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Canley and Rebecca have already established notability for this, but can I ask how this is a "corporation" as established under WP:CORP? Surely Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest would be a more appropriate category (although it is more than "local" interest, as it was the biggest shopping centre in Australia for a long time...) JROBBO 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur on notability. As for your question, WP:CORP criteria apply to economic entities in general (don't be fooled by the abbreviated page name), including malls. As for Wikipedia:Places_of_local_interest, that is a "how to" on creating and maintaining pages for locally relevant entities; it is not concerned with notability, and contains no notability criteria. --Nehwyn 16:51, 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. Dakota 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Island[edit]

Describes a film that is not yet in production. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Appears to be promotional/advertising; article created by the director of the film. This editor has previously tried to use Wikipedia to promote himself - Hussein Tajvidi. Disputed PROD. FreplySpang 08:49, 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 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medition: The roles and functions of Legal Representatives in Mediation[edit]

This article is essentially someone's POV essay that was posted into wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be any salvageable content, so delete. Kchase T 10:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: POV essay (and title is a typo). Sam Clark 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is by User:Nicole Nelson. I am also nominating her other articles to be bundled with this for the reasons outlined above:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Georgianism[edit]

Another ethnic animosities page. Unfortunately there are precedents for such pages that have been kept (and this one has evidently used one of those as a blueprint). But this is particularly weak specimen. It doesn't even attempt to make a case that its subject-matter constitutes a coherent phenomenon and that it has been discussed in such terms in the literature. Its main assertions are entirely unsourced. The largest part of the article is taken up by a discussion not of "Anti-Georgianism", but of "Russification" (in Georgia but mainly elsewhere) - but if the author wants to imply that Russification is ipso facto Anti-Georgianism, that would be an OR argument par excellence. Apart from that, the article features a propaganda poster illustrating Georgian animosity against Russian political interventionism - but that, if anything, reflects Anti-Russian propaganda by Georgians, not Anti-Georgianism by Russians. All in all, just another case of the "Anti-X'ism" article format being misused for OR listings of just any and all grievances ethnicity X may have against its neighbours, and as such almost certainly a POV-fork (though I'm not sure of what). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this particular incarnation per nom (and a very impressive nom at that, I must say). If anti-Georgianism does in fact exist as something of a similar significance as some of the other "anti-Xisms" of history and culture, no prejudice at all against recreating an article reflecting this. Likewise, if citations and the like can be provided, no objections to a move to another title, although I can't for the life of me think what yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another example of creating "anti-anything" neologism on Wikipedia and adding bunch of mostly unrelated events into it. Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another anti-category, very rarely used in scholarly, let alone common, society. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.--WaltCip 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Rename - the common name is "anti-Georgia" and results in 10K google hits. The term anti-Georgianism though is a neologism and gets 7 hits. I would recommend renaming the article to "Russia and anti-Georgia actions" or something to that effect. --Deodar 23:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not quite. "Anti-Georgia" is an adjective (in that one can have "anti-Georgia policies"), while "anti-Georgianism" should by rights be the noun and the preferable article title of the two. Further, some of the Google hits for "anti-Georgia" are in fact dealing with biases against the US state of the same name, particularly in a College Football sense. The bulk seem to be about Russia's perceived view of the state in the Caucasus, but it's still being used adjectivally. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 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 No Consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Hampson[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but doesn't qualify, because the subject passes WP:BIO: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Looks like a work in progress. Redglasses 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being an NHL player is directly in line with the cited WP:BIO guideline. --Marriedtofilm 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubby article, but VERY NOTABLE subject. He played in the NHL. He is notable. end of story. A poorly written article is no reason for deletion; deletion should be based solely on the notability of the subject, NOT on the quality of the writing. Also, the article is brand new. It is a work in progress, and thus should be given some leeway. If you want some substancial proof, a google search turns up OODLES of notable information. Check it out. He's very notable. --Jayron32 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed. After I wipe the egg off my face and get my foot out of my mouth. See below--Jayron32 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being a pro athlete doesn't mean that they are deserving of an article. That part of WP:BIO is very flawed, and is not an end all to if someone gets an article or not. Looking at the google link, he has about 110 Ghits, which is very low. This player's NHL career was only 4 games, and nothing of note happened. There isn't "OODLES" of info here or there. Totally nn, regardless of the writing quality. Cornerbock 21:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a flawed part of WP:BIO, but it's a part of WP:BIO nonetheless. So unless and until it is repealed, the criterion applies to all athletes, including Gord Hampson. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply' Ignore WP:BIO. Throw it out the window. Return to the primary notability criteria. Is there NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE, RELIABLE SOURCES. Also, forget the total number of ghits. Did you even read the articles? People have extensive reviews of his playing style, his quality as a player, his contributions to the game of hockey. In reliable sources. It isn't a matter of a simple line on a stat page. He has non-trivial coverage. Its in many sources. The sources are reliable. The article is poorly written. That has no bearing on the inherent notability of the subject. HE is notable. The article is a stub. The article needs expansion using these sources, not deletion. Let the relevent wikiproject or other interested editors expand it. I wouldn't say this if he wasn't notable, but he WAS. --Jayron32 05:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not notable, pretty much every link I saw is pretty much a retread of his stats. And if you have links that have other relevant yet important info, I'd like to see it. WP will turn into a virtual trasheap if every athlete gets an article. He had a so-so college career, and played 4 NHL games, with nothing of note. He is not notable in the least bit, and I don't like how you are trying to pump up the vote by saying such lies like "WP:BIO is right, so we must abide to it", it's a guideline, not a law. Cornerbock 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to weak delete : OK. I am man enough to admit when I was wrong. I misread these pages (Mainly misreading the Colorado Flames as Calagary flames. Oops.). A keep arguement might be able to be made based on his College career (He did average almost a point a game during his senior year), but such an arguement could not be made on a 4-game NHL career. So I am moving to a weak delete. If we can find press on what people thought of his college play, I will change back. But I did not find it. --Jayron32 01:54, 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 no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. --Coredesat 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers[edit]

big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem talk 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (and tag the nomination as {{db-g1}}). Tonywalton  | Talk 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen all day. POV, listcruft, unverifiable, unmaintainable, useless. It's a list categorizing porn stars on the size of their breasts, come on people. --The Way 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nominators ONLY edits are nominating this article for deletion. TJ Spyke 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does that have to do with anything? Just because the nominator is questionable by no means implies that the article nominated is acceptable. --The Way 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice long list, but, just seems totally pointless (pun not intended). Could be considered WP:POV as no doubt there are different PsOV on what constitutes a big bust! QuiteUnusual 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Koweja 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up, define what is considered big-bust and remove those who don't fit. Edgecution 23:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double-D-elete - Pun definitely intended. The list would become unmanageable. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, unencyclopedic listcruft. Switchercat talkcont 01:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Way and QuiteUnusual. Subjective and rather trivial. There's no one standard of what makes a bust big, nor is there any encyclopaedic reason to group people in this manner. GassyGuy 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has neutrality and original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --Jayron32 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vote changed (see below) --Jayron32 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination reeks of an SPA. The list is probably useful to someone, and there are plenty of lists about people with random physical features. People missing one eye, missing appendages, etc.--MonkBirdDuke 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of things are "probably useful to someone." That doesn't really mean we should host all of them, does it? GassyGuy 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is manageable; the definition of "big bust adult performer" has caused far less quarrels than people here predict. Porn actresses and notable models are allowed on wikipedia, so there's no reason to disallow a list that groups them by an attribute important in their industry. -- Mikeblas 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.133.126 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment For those of you who are troubled by the nominator, just pretend I nominated this bit of trivia instead and go from there. There's really not so much productive in discussing the motivation behind the nomination here. Best just to focus on the article at hand. GassyGuy 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ad hominem defenses are faulty ways to provide evidence for your point of view. Ad hominem means against the person: We are not debating the qualities of the person who nominated the AfD. That discussion can go on elsewhere on Wikipedia, like Requests for Intervention or other such places. The only valid means for deciding whether to keep or delete this article lie in the subject of the article itself. Not the quality of the writing. Not the people who have edited or created it. And certainly not in the personality of the original nominator. The article in question is subjective and and random. It lacks notability. Porn actresses are notable. Models are notable. Lists of random porn actresses and models by a random physical trait is NONNOTABLE. Stop trying to defend the "keep" position by ad hominem means. Defend the article itself on its own terms. Provide evidence. You can sway opinions by making a good case, not by attacking the original nom. --Jayron32 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't think anyone here is attacking the nominator. They're attacking the nomination itself. Ad hominem would mean saying that the nominator is a bad person, therefore his nomination is bad. We've simply said the nomination is bad. Sockpuppetry and bad faith administrative actions are real problems on Wikipedia, and it's not necessary to follow through with a problematic action if we know it to be unsound. -- Mikeblas 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/Strong Keep not only is this a very interesting article that many people use (also frequently edited), a category of this list does not exist. This list both rare to find and can easily capture many people's attention. It is mostly NPOV since cup size can be used to categorize this. Valoem talk 01:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am going to make a comment. AfD is NOT vote and I noticed many people are saying the same thing. This is a counter-argument to all who voted delete.
1. List is POV - This list is not POV because other than one or two actresses in the list all other actresses have minimum of a D Cup. Therefore the size is not POV, but requires a physical measurement based on cup size.
2. List is unverifiable - Are you kidding me? List is Verifiable simply look up the actress in question and see her cup size.
3. List is unmaintainable - How many actresses can you name off the top of your head that have a D cup? In fact many actresses/models do not have large breasts, after all large breasts are consider a fetish see breast fetish.
4. Listcruft - no it is not, it does not fall into any of the categories in listcrust, List is maintainable, The list is of interest applies very large number of people (don't forgot none wikipedia members), The list is a discriminate collection of information, The list has content beyond links to other articles, and category does not exist and needs to be created Valoem talk 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unindenting Wait - fetishes are all about uncommon things? Care to explain, say, fart fetishism, then? This list is of interest to a very large number of people? That's debatable, but even if so, is it of encyclopaedic interest? Highly unlikely. Host it somewhere else if you're a fan of the list, but there is no real justification for it as encyclopaedic content. GassyGuy 03:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. If there is a better title, let's rename it. -- User:Docu
  • Comment What's the point in having lists on here if you can't have a big boob list?--MonkBirdDuke 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Either keep this list or delete _all_ lists. -- Kamui99 01:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply To the previous two votes: all lists are not equal. Some lists, such as List of heavy metal bands or List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England are notable in that they are based on notable information. The former is about bands based on their genre. Musical acts are discussed within the context of their genre. Knowing the genre of a band is essential to understanding how the music is to be understood and reviewed. The latter contains a collection of Monarchs listed by dynasty and in order by date of reign. Again, notable and important information to understand context. This list contains a list of models organized by a random physical trait. "Lists of models by modeling agency", or "lists of models by major ad campaigns", or "lists of models appearing in Penthouse magazine" would ALL be notable lists: They contain information about notable people organized in a notable way. A person's mere physical statistics (height, weight, eye color, and even cup size) are NOT notable. Thus, this list is non notable. --Jayron32 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Not very useful but keep and rename. Make it clear what "big bust" is and who is notable for it. Remove people who do not fit in to the category. Fedayee 08:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list now has a specific cup size requirement so it is no longer subjective. Vegaswikian 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply please see above. To sum up: Simple physical statisistics (height, weight, eye color, even cup size) are not notable traits. Lists of models can be notable, if they are listed by NOTABLE characteristics. This does not pass. --Jayron32 01:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply In the field of adult entertainment / modeling, bust size IS a notable trait, otherwise there wouldn't be such widespread genre specific publication Charlam 00 04:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep nomination is by an SPA (thats 1 strike against this afd), article was previously nominated for afd (thats another strike against this afd)... and Valoem makes a strong argument towards keeping it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply 1) Ad hominem defenses are faulty (don't base your defense on the personality of the person who nominated the article) 2) the prior AfD was NO CONSENSUS. This is not the same as keep. It means exactly what it says. There was no consensus reached to do anything, so the status quo was kept by default. It doesn't mean that there was ever widespread consensus that this article is notable. 3) Valoem's arguement above is faulty because it merely says that it is interesting and useful. Neither is a "keep" defense. Lots of things are interesting and useful, but not entirely encyclopedic. As a "category" it might be worthwhile to categorize models by bust size, but as an article, it is a pointless list. The only person voting for keep who made ANYTHING of a credible arguement is Charlam about two votes above. I respectfully disagree; but at LEAST he is making a keep vote on notability grounds. Also of note, THE ARTICLE IS ENTIRELY UNREFERENCED... Thus it is original research, and thus it is also deletable. If EACH performer or model listed could be linked to an appropriate third-party reference that identified her as the cup size the article claimed to be, then we MIGHT have something, but as it stands now, it is Orignial Research, a direct violation of Wikipedia policy, and thus it must go... --Jayron32 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply First of all an unreferenced article is hardly a reason to delete. If an article is unreferenced you add references. It is only when an article is unreferenced and references can not be made that you delete under WP:V. Secondly, this article is referenced in the links to the persons in question. If you click on anyone one of the people listed on that page their own articles have both references and their stated bust size. You also didn't mention any of the other points that I have made including my arguments against listcruft and WP:V. Therefore this article is not original research. Lastly, even you have stated that this nomination was bad faith, these are all the more reasons to keep. Valoem talk 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply to reply Ok, I will concede that the references can be found in the respective articles. I retract that the article is original research, but it is still NOT NOTABLE. It is still nothing more than a listing of people by a random and arbitrary physical statistic. Good lists can be made of adult models; this is not one of them. One more point: As i said before

" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty. I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. --Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • reply to reply Not sure if this is what you're asking for, but as far as I can think of, to prove cup size is a valid standard measurement in aduly models would be to cite publications specializing only in models that would fit in this category, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_%28magazine%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Busty_Beauties, Gent, a specialiazed title series of Playboy (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) which is based solely on the models having larger then "average" bustlines. Aside from this, numerous websites featuring models specifically of D cup or larger, the fact that many Feature Dancers are booked by cup size and to some degree even the article on Breast Fetishism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_fetishism) would point to the relevance of this particular measurement standing out versus other physical characteristics. Charlam 00 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Myles Long 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.

  • Change vote to Keep. Thank you to Charlam. Homework has been done. Article looks like it can be made to pass the threshold. Suggestions to make it better:
  1. Use the {{main}} tag to direct readers to the Breast Fetishism article. Perhaps a sentance or two from that article applied here will help establish context.
  2. REFERENCE the notability of this article using the same references as the Breast Fetishism article. Also indicate the most notable magazines and film series to focus on Breast Fetishism, perhaps under a "see also" section. There appears to be reputable sources that indicate the notability of this particular kink, and so those references apply equally as well to both articles.
  3. Rename the list article to indicate better that we are talking about Porn Actresses. Perhaps "List of Adult Film Actresses with Large Breasts" or some such. The title is misleading, as it could refer to non-adult film stars or models. I will still hold that OUTSIDE of porn, the catagorization of breast size is a non notable trait. The article needs to indicate its own context to make itself notable. --Jayron32 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Month after month, this is one of the most sought after lists on Wikipedia, with an average of over 34,000 page views per day in the month of August 2006 alone. [30] Yamaguchi先生 03:39, 1 November 2006
  • Keep. Wikipedia excels in treatments of popular culture not treated in academia. The topic is of interest to many, even if 'vulgar'. Perhaps the strongest critique (apart from poor definition one mentioned above) is the feminist one that treating the topic legitimizes the objectification of women as sex objects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rnest2002 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Chatham[edit]

The opening paragraph says it all: "Ben Chatham is a fan-created companion character by the poster "Sparacus" on the American Doctor Who fan website forum, Outpost Gallifrey. He is 'portrayed' by Adam Rickitt, an actor who Sparacus greatly desires appear in Doctor Who. Despite the mixture of contempt and apathy from the few fans who know of his existence, Sparacus insists the character is both popular and canonical (mainly for comic affect) and pretends that Big Finish are interested in making adventures for him." WP:NOT applies in so very many ways. ➨ ЯEDVERS 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like a joke article that went too far. Surprised it lasted as long as it has. Skittle 13:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fictious character created by forum poster, per WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. --Kinu t/c 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The comments on this page were vandalized. Restored. --Kinu t/c 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as WP:NOT doesn't really seem to apply, and it's all based on real stories that have been written over the last few years. It's not connected to Doctor Who, but it is related to Outpost Gallifrey, and it's a very well written article.--Kinggodzillak 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best, a merge to Outpost Gallifrey although the sheer length of this article could make a nonsense of that of itself. Maybe delete and someone could add a synopsis to the Outpost Gallifrey article. It may be worth keeping the information; it will help the police when they're trying to trace Adam Rickett's lunatic stalker in a few years time....Ac@osr 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also please refer to the fan fiction section at WP:FICTION. --Kinu t/c 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ben Chatham author has (so far) had nothing to do with the article. --Kinggodzillak 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - a user called Sparacus vandalised this Afd earlier, removing delete opinions. I accept the possibility that this could have been anyone however. Ac@osr 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete* Ben Chatham is a popular character with thousands of internet followers. Beyond mere 'fan fiction'— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparacus (talk • contribs)
    • Please sign your comments with four tildes. Thank you. Ac@osr 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:FICTION, WP:WEB. GassyGuy 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope23. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Edward Wakelin 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete* The hunour shown in the mickey-taking of Sparie's character must be preserved for ever, if only to show that no one likes him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.19.33 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tans Restaurant[edit]

NN local restaurant... probably. This article is the sole contribution of its creator, and was marked with {{db-spam}} by Calton. The article includes claims about Ronald Reagan and Huey Lewis visiting the restaurant -- currently, unsourced claims -- but I thought it was enough of an attempt at explaining notability to go straight to AfD. The article is a little advert-like, but could be salvaged if the restaurant has notability because of these visitors. I say, though, that without seeing a source we should delete. Mangojuicetalk 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 53 total Google hits, 25 unique Google hits, zero Google hits (that I could find) relating to this specific establishment ("Tans Restaurant"+"Eden Prairie" also gives zero hits). Even if Reagan did eat there once, who cares? NN, ad, unverified, delete. -- Kicking222 13:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would be more inclided to keep it if the city it was in listed the restaurant as an attraction or something. But, i cannot find it in the article on the city. Defintley Delete. Chris Kreider 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, doesn't meet WP:CORP, WP:NOT the Zagat guide to Eden Prairie. --Kinu t/c 21:26, 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 Speedily deleted as a non-notable website/event. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh Survivor[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Absolutely non-notable per WP:WEB, especially on its own. One ghit, which is WP's article on Smosh: [Check Google hits]. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fails to assert notability in the article. Speedy delete as {{db-web}}. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No notability asserted, as no notability exists. -- Kicking222 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - No notability, and what the heck is smosh? To give the creating editor some credit, there are some other headings in the article, it looks like it may be a work in process? Maybe give them a day or 2 to expand the article to see if it becomes something more notable, or at least more descriptive to what it is. There are not alot of "spam" links at the bottom, so I am leaning towards a weak delete.Chris Kreider 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is what a smosh is. Smosh's videos have been seen by millions of people worldwide and have even appeared on mainstream television. It says here. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! I still have to recomend a delete unless somebody adds substantian content to the article. Chris Kreider 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not notable. Andre (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It's being updated, give it a couple days, it is indeed notable. --71.193.47.23 01:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak Merge. As it is, this article should be deleted completely. It doesn't do what an encyclopedia article is supposed to do. It doesn't inform someone about a topic that they have not heard of before. It's confusing. It looks like an "inside joke." It doesn't explain to the outsider what is going on, and why anyone outside the Smosh.com forum participants would even care. Even with the promised updates the best we can hope for is a MERGE, but I'm not holding my breath.OfficeGirl 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for obvious reasons. --- RockMFR 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete: There's a lot of information on this and there is too much to merge it into the Smosh Article.--Ngard039 14:52, 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 The one legitimate keep vote here suggested that the result in Cheeseweb (begun on the 25 October and closed by me just a moment ago) must logically apply here. I agree, and close this a bit early for consistency. There appears to be no objection to slight mentions in the parent article, but these mentions should be minimal enough such that GFDL merging isn't needed. Xoloz 15:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Council[edit]

A webforum (or more accurately, a gaming clan), for The War of the Ring Online Campaign. No sign it meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG. "In total, there were 3007 registered participants" in The War of the Ring Online Campaign, so far fewer in this group. No gnews hits. No in-article links to third-party sources. This article tops Google results for "The Dark Council", but the top non-WP result refers to a completely different group with this common name darkcouncil.com. Short version: nn gaming clan - delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominations The Alliance of Light and Campaign of LoTRs, which also lack third-party reporting and do not appear to meet WP:WEB or WP:ORG.

See also the related current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheeseweb; the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance Website closed with speedy deletion (WP:CSD G11, A7). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. None of the articles seem to make an assertion of notablility. They may be speedy-able. eaolson 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All of the sites have been mentioned in publications, which is more than can be said of half of the articles on this entire encyclopaedia. If you are so interested with keeping Wikipedia full of content with notability, I ask you to go and check out the entire site. This article is fine, as with all the others. If you make a living by spitefully going onto a FREE encyclopaedia to delete articles then may God help you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorfindel1993 (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy Delete Complete WP:WEB or WP:ORG failure. Anomo 09:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all, no assertion of notability, none imaginable, utter cruft and self-promotion. Sandstein 06:19, 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 g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NOT. NawlinWiki 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random egg[edit]

Non-notable "game". No Ghits (except for a cookery book called "Souffles, Quiches, Mousses and the Random Egg, which is unconnected). Looks a good example of something made up at the breakfast table. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Delete: SPA removed speedy and then AfD tags, "game" does not assert notability at all; Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. SkerHawx 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ::Agreed, Wildthing61476's speedy tag as patent nonsense looks appropriate as it's, as WP:PN says: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.. So tagging. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I originally placed the tag on this article, obviously falls under WP:NFT. Wildthing61476 13:15, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hapland[edit]

Flash game that seems like it fails WP:WEB/WP:RS/WP:V. Was previous nominated HERE, but the only comments were keeps with comments regarding its number of google hits. Wickethewok 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If the external links section has almost as many lines as the article does, it seems more like spam. The game does not seem notable and is using wikipedia as an avenue to gain awareness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) (sorry about that) Chris Kreider 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per first AfD. Entering neutral vote. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason on the first AFD was "has a lot of google hits", which isn't really an appropriate criteria for anything... Wickethewok 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're going with vague assertion of popularity then? Wickethewok 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "Let's improve the article", but it hasn't done that in eight months and I'm not in the position to do so. If it hasn't happened by now, I really don't have a reason to believe it ever will, so I'll change my vote to neutral. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's been over half a year, and I see no sign that the article has been improved. It still completely lacks reliable secondary sources or other verifiable evidence of notability. Standards have tightened as WP has become more frequently targetted by spammers, and what may have passed as a keep argument back in February does not necessarily stand up today. Xtifr tälk 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article comes across as way to promotional, and as previously stated, hasn't been touched in a long time. The Kinslayer 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful neutral per nom. This and grow (game) have been very popular as logic games, one may even say influential, but unless reliable sources can be found we probably can't have a decent article. Here's one review from a professional but barely-known website. Somebody prove me wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:45, 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. W.marsh 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Online Games[edit]

Flash games website that doesn't have any real claims of notability, in terms of WP:WEB at least. Looks like it fails WP:RS/WP:V as well. Delete as such. Wickethewok 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to an Alexa traffic graph, this site's traffic is about as high as the traffic of Newgrounds and nearly triples the traffic of Something Awful. Highly notable. Michaelas10 (T|C) 13:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A high Alexa rank/traffic details doesn't make it meet WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:WEB though. Wickethewok 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems no different than spam. If somebody added that link to the end of an article on anything, it would be deleted as Spam. Chris Kreider 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to its incredibly high ranking (707!). This is clearly notable, because of the extremely large number of people that appear to come into contact with it, but badly needs sourcing. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partly rewritten and sourced Michaelas10 (T|C) 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Neither of those references are reliable third party sources. One of them is the FAQ from the site itself! The Kinslayer 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a lot of trouble finding references, when the most I found were just forum posts. Should I just remove that information and add referenced one instead? Michaelas10 (T|C) 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I'd say that the trouble with finding references is kind of indicative of the lack of notability of this site. But if you can find any postive news stories about the site, or some independant awards it won, that would go a long way to establishing notability, just remeber that the sources need to be unrelated to the main site in all ways apart from the fact they are talking about it. The Kinslayer 10:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- High Alexa rank indicates great traffic. Entries about individual flash games are being cleared out, but that doesn't mean an article about a site with hundreds (apparently) of flash games should be thrown out. --Groggy Dice 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability established. Otherwise, it's just another website advertisement. --Alan Au 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm.. I wrote it three months ago. No, I don't think it sounds like an advertisment, as I removed all the sentences that gave it that tone. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of tone, my main problem with the article is that it makes no verifiable claims of notability that satisfy WP:WEB. --Alan Au 09:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anomo 09:45, 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 delete a1 (no context) and g1 (patent nonsense). NawlinWiki 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Periwnkle[edit]

This article is patent nonsense. SergeantBolt (t,c) 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy Delete - Just nonsense, does not explain where it is from.Chris Kreider 14:05, 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. Author requested deletion through creating this afd. Hiding Talk 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist[edit]

I'm not voting As a newcomer to Wikipedia, perhaps one of the few in-words I know is "deletionist". I personally think it is a real word which although possibly mostly found in Wikipedia does deserve an entry on its own.

I tried to find the "suggest an article" link, but its gone (or I couldn't find it).

My reason for suggesting this article is that I came across the term before I really knew anything about Wikipedia. So, unlike many other inventions it does have an external scope to Wikipedia. This is not a frivolous suggestion, I'm being serious that I think it exists as something that is worthy of an entry, and not knowing how else to discuss it I created the article for deletion! --Mike 13:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a self referential neologism. Resolute 13:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Haseler created both the article itself, and attempted to create this AfD. I corrected the templates so it shows up in the log. Resolute 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-referential - There don't seem to be any sources that discuss this outside the context of Wikipedia (or mirrors of it). Neologism - Even if it is applied to the wiki world outside of Wikipedia, it's too new to have its own article. ... discospinster talk 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as this seems more like a personal statement than anything else. Possibly a sandbox attempt. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - self-referential, plays into the hands of tha haterz (as the youngsters might have it)Ac@osr 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a serious suggestion - Sorry, about the junk left by my template. It now just contains a non-wikipedia quote and the first link to a non-wikipedia site I found. As I said the term is known outside the Wikipedia workspace - this is probably one of the hardest articles to vote on because those involved are too close! Best regards --Mike 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, it is one of the easiest to vote on. Another blog is not a reliable source, thus this article fails WP:V and WP:RS. IMO, it also fails WP:WINAD and WP:NEO. Resolute 14:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible, while wondering what the creator/nominator is playing at. --Pak21 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Speedy delete per WP:POINT after comments below --Pak21 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll write a serious article, I'll find the sources, I'll even delete if it proves impossible to write - but I'm not going to try unless I get some kind of assurance it won't be deleted by the first button happy person that finds it! --Mike 14:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: If you are attempting to use this article and/or AfD as some kind of support for your proposed reform of the current deletion policy, that could be considered a violation of WP:POINT. --Pak21 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It is on my mind - that is why I looked. But, I doing it now because if I don't ask when I'm still new and thinking about it I won't ask at all --Mike 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. DCEdwards1966 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 42,000 Google hits supports notability. Inclusionist/deletionist dichotomy is an important aspect of all online encyclopedias and other Wiki-like collections of information. Without deletionists to filter out the algae of cruft, every existing article, person, or phenomenon would generate a plethora of branch articles and intractable disambiguation pages. Edison 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, this seems to be an attempt to link to an obscure druid wiki, which is linked to twice in this very short article. Deletionism as it applies to Wikipedia is already covered by several articles on Meta, mainly this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've heard enough. As I thought it wasn't worth putting in the effort to write it. I think we are wasting time discussing further - if I could remember how to speedy delete I'd do it! can someelse do it for me - and thanks for the input. Better to have a discussion now rather than after spending half a day writing it! --Mike 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this self-referential article (is this a self-referential vote?) NawlinWiki 15:42, 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. --Coredesat 05:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers Voice[edit]

Small forum, not yet notable. Tom Harrison Talk 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No notability, only at his school? There are many message boards that are school related that dont deserve a wikipedia article. Chris Kreider 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, too new, almost no activity on the board. Watch out, this article is being link spammed to articles like Engineer and Engineering. Hu 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Not notable at all. --- RockMFR 17:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Hi, I'm the author of this forum. First of all, I don't mean to make it for my school only. I know it's new and not much activity is going on currently. But everyone has a starting point, don't we? Hu, how can u say i linked spam when the links placed were related to my field? They were not even external links, and they link to engineers_voice article within wikipedia. Yiwen017 12:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using wiki links to link to a promotion article is still link spamming, even if it is a bit indirect. It was not terribly great in number, but it is still basically trying to promote your forum, and it is well-established policy that Wikipedia is not to be used that way. Hu 07:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a new page and it was mentioned as a stub, and wikipedia encourage to introduce links to it. So, I went out to find the most relevant article to link to this page. And I chose "engineers" and "engineering". I have to introduce links to my page eventually, right? Does that count as link spam? Other than that, I do admit that it's new. Yiwen017 8:57, 30 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Puppet Shows[edit]

Non-notable puppet show. Prod tag removed. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:30, 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 delete. --Coredesat 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine[edit]

Lack of sources and comparison is inherently original research. Interrobamf 14:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR. Title almost practically defines what original research is. Without any sources, this article consists solely of analyzing the two series: original research. Mitaphane talk 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stated above, because this is basically the definition of WP:OR. While one could argue that the shows themselves serve as primary sources, the problem here is that, in drawing the parallels, it becomes a case of synthesis. What's next, Similarities between The A-Team and Charles in Charge? --Kinu t/c 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that'd make a cracking article, let me know when you've put it together!!! QuiteUnusual 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full wikishields, fire all forward DELETE guns Both series originally featured a shapeshifter character; however, Babylon 5 dropped that element before filming - so,em didn't.. OR. --Charlesknight 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR QuiteUnusual 22:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oscar Romeo. Danny Lilithborne 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I don't really care for the article, it was already nominated for deletion and failed. You shouldn't get to keep renominating it until you get your way.Koweja 22:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My name isn't Indrian, nor was I even around for the last debate. Interrobamf 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The last AfD is over a year old. Danny Lilithborne 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But have the two articles substantially changed in the past year and a half [31]? If the article wasn't deletable then, I don't see how it is now. Koweja 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment prior Afd decisions are not binding on us, because consensus can change.-- danntm T C 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • comment last AfD was "no consensus" which is NOT the same as a failure... Failure inplies "keep" status. The article in question was given a chance to improve... --Jayron32 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete too much original research.-- danntm T C 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as I said above, it was given a chance to improve. It has changed substantially. Change does NOT equal improvement. The list is original research at the outset. --Jayron32 06:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading first similarity: "Both series are named after a space station name with a single-digit number", only thing I can say: DELETE--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP — There are two reasons: First, as stated in the introduction of the article, over comparisons of any two contemporary series, there is an allegation from the series creator of Babylon 5 that there was significant borrowing (being kind) of situations and plot elements by executives of Paramount for use in Deep Space Nine. Second, if this article is deleted, the information will likely be added back in to the B5 and DS9 articles (where this article originated), growing independently in those articles. Val42 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there is some comonality based on their shared space-station (rarther than starship) setting, etc. The article is original research and as such should be deleted. Eluchil404 09:50, 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.

Where can I get this page?[edit]

Where can I get this page? It says it's deleted but I want to read it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't. The point of deleting a page is that it is made "no longer accessible". — Val42 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that the content is gone? I thought this site was open and I could see all changes. I guess some things just go down the memory hole! THIS IS BULLSHIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.130.123 (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2008 (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. --Coredesat 05:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Negrao[edit]

Completely unsourced. Style indicates self-promotion. IMDB does not know him, and neither does the Portuguese wikipedia: see pt:Kai Negrao pt:Kai Negrão. Aleph-4 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yea, no notability, definite delete. Sounds like self promotion to me. Chris Kreider 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he's a future movie director and is expected to be one of the best movie makers Brazil has ever had. Perhaps IMdB isn't a crystal ball either. Delete as unverifiable, NN, vanity, crystal ball etc. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice for him that he's a future movie director but until he is a current movie director he doesnt belong on here. Keresaspa 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present Delete Danny Lilithborne 22:20, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Squad[edit]

This article was originally AfD'ed last year here, resulting in its deletion. This new incarnation is expanded, and has one new somewhat reliable source, so it probably deserves another go through AfD. Nevertheless, I don't think notability is established by the one newspaper mention, so Delete. Xoloz 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do we need a formal vote count tomorrow? --BenWoodruff 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Looks like a good amount of content and somebody put some work into the page. I think its on the verge and I like to assume good faith, and err on side of caution. Let the article stay. Chris Kreider 15:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an organization with actual community service in 2 countries. Give this article at least 3 weeks to see what happens. --BenWoodruff 15:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet Going strictly by what's in the article, they appear to be notable: an organisation with chapters in several states, and working with several major and respected charities. Surely the media has covered their activities and if references are added to the article, I'll be happy to vote strong keep on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may be biased but I have been to a number of their events and they have a ton of fans that drive from all over for their "Zombie Survival" disaster preparation seminars, Blood Drives, Fundraiser Events, Can Food Drives, and disaster volunteering after a crisis. If you want an interview with a Rep in your town or want a reference from the many charities they regularly work with give them a call 1-888-495-4052 Most of their work is through events offline so you might not find a lot of web articles about them but, hell, just type in "Zombie Squad" in Google or Technorati. Check out these pics from Zombie Con 2006 and Zombie Con 2005. They even sponsor a few paintball teams around the country. I'm not sure what sort of proof you guys need. --Damnuzombies 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has five external sources cited that I can see, two of which are obviously notable enough to have their own articles. There are plenty of articles with fewer sources. Looks great for only being up for five days: (Oct 22-26). - Thingsbreak 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the creator of this article. Notable places where they have mentioned include River Front Times, Webster University Journal, Rue Morgue Magazine, and St. Louis Magazine. There are other sources, but they may or may not considered notable. SkinnyZan 16:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I saw their website mentioned on G4 'Attack of the Show' last year. That probably gives a little credibility.
    • Do you have a link for this? When last year was this shown? Also, you might want to sign your posts, otherwise you're not really adding any credibility. Damnuzombies 17:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a real charitable organization. They have papers to prove it. -- THEBlunderbuss 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-written, amusing, and informative. ♠PMC♠ 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:23, 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. W.marsh 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NABGO[edit]

NN - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete (A7). I didn't know that Canada and Australia was the 51st and 52nd states. ColourBurst 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Can anybody find any media coverage and/or attendence numbers? There's a picture of the attendees on their website with maybe a dozen people visible, but it doesn't say whether that was everyone or just some of them. If that's it, I'd probably vote to delete. Looks like a hell of a lot of fun though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would say give the article more time to develop but they have had 3 weeks so far and has no sources. Chris Kreider 17:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A notable competition in a notable hobby. Quite reasonable to keep this one. Article has trouble asserting its notability, but it might be keepable. Also might be better to merge with Model Warship Combat. That probably would be good too.--Jayron32 06:37, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Architect of the Universe[edit]

This article should be deleted beciase it is an unexpandable stub. GAOTU is nothing more than a specialized Masonic (and possibly Calvinist) term for Supreme Being, and it would be better to state the usage there. MSJapan 15:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw AfD if possible. I'm very annoyed that this sat for over six months with no real work on it (it was also duplicated as TGAOTU), and was a bad sub-stub until this AfD was filed, and never mind the fact that the person who removed the prod did nothing to the article either. It's very convenient timing for information to surface. If the current material had been part of the article months (or even a week) ago, this AfD would have been totally unnecessary. MSJapan 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why didn't you work on it yourself during all of that time? No information has surfaced. It was all already available, months and even years ago. The only tools that were required to create the content as it now stands were Google Web, Google Scholar, and Special:Whatlinkshere/Great Architect of the Universe. Before asserting that something is unexpandable, it is wise to perform the research to actually check whether there is scope for expansion. Performing the research involves the aforementioned tools. Uncle G 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I never saw the article until I was doing a category cleanup on Freemasonry the other day, and as far as the article was concerned, it was about GAOTU in Freemasonry. Thus, the idea to expand it to Calvin and other non-Masonic usages never occurred to me, because that did not appear to be the intent of the article. MSJapan 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Supreme beings tend to be notable. :) At the very least, should be merged into a related article. Maybe we have a glossary of Masonic terms? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's already adequately discussed elsewhere, nothing more than a definition. Redirect to Freemasonry.ALR 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be unfortunate, given the inbound link from gnosticism. Uncle G 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somewhat pissed off that it takes AFD to actually motivate some action, but given the material added I'll revoke.ALR 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could have taken the action yourself. See above. Uncle G 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Unexpandible stub" isn't a reason for deletion, and it's a perfectly legitimate stand-alone stub anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Not enough for an article, better covered as a term of art in an appropriate article. --Improv 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interestingly those who delete (my) parts of the article vote to delete it completely. (Given reason for deletion: Can be found "elsewhere") But many thanks to Uncle G for your very constructive work. Interestingly, GAOTU is only a symbol and NOT identical to a Supreme Being. This is just a reinterpretation of "regular" Freemasons of today. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This is neither the time nor place to start wilfull misinterpretation of the position.ALR 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be interesting, although the idea isn't something i would follow. But someone else might find use in it, like for a college essay. FlowerSniffer 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is an idea I understand, seems to be something I might look for in an encylopedia. Chris Kreider 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Freemasonry is an eminently notable organization. If not keep, redirect to an appropriate article on Freemasonry, or perhaps, if we have one, a List of names of God article. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is hardly unexpandable, and barely a stub now. Normally I might say merge to Freemasonry, however that article is already 65KB. At that size you're supposed to "split [the] article into smaller, more specific articles", which is what was done with Great Architect of the Universe. Koweja
  • Keep needs work but notable enough. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 18:24, 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 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons logos[edit]

Delete. This is basically a collection of images, which goes against this policy. The author removed the prod and said that s/he meant it to be a convenient place to locate the files. I considered userfying but I did not because of possible copyright issues. ... discospinster talk 15:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useful for what? The author's own webpages? Wikipedia? This isn't an article and has no place in the main Wikipedia space. ColourBurst 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - fails WP:FAIR. To qualify as fair use, images should only appear in the relevant article namespace, otherwise its copyright infringement. If the article is deleted, Image:Adnd-logo2.gif would be orphaned and would need to find a home in a relevant article or be nominated for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with TSR logos and the image adnd-logo2.gif. I just wont add anymore to Wikipedia since everyone seems to conflict and contradict everything as far as guidelines and such go. Maybe admins should be the only ones that are allowed to create articles due to this reason. Then articles won't get atacked for deletion within an hour of initial creation before they can be expanded into proper articles. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this clearly goes against WP:NOT.--Isotope23 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete Per Nom.Chris Kreider 19:03, 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 as a blatant advertisement. --Coredesat 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) i want to learn how can i ?[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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Butz[edit]

Notability appears to be at least somewhat suspect, under the "average professor" test, and his involvement in Holocaust denial does not itself give notability, I think. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's published, which makes him more notable than a lot of other professors. Moreover, the article is linked to by a number of related articles. Special:Whatlinkshere/Arthur Butz Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Although his professorial notability may be questionable, his actions as a holocaust denier have sparked plenty of public outrage, landing him in several major newspapers in the United States and internationally [32] [33] [34]. He has also sparked outrage on the Northwestern campus, being the subject of dozens of editorials, statements by University president Henry Bienen, and condemnations by the faculty. [35] [36] [37] johnpseudo 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notorious and newsworthy for his crackpot views. NawlinWiki 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for his role in Holocaust denial, and the news and so on surrounding his objectionable views/activities. Edward Wakelin 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Regardless of all other random notability guidelines like WP:PROF (which he probably fails), he does pass the most important one: He merits NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE in MULTIPLE, RELIABLE SOURCES. That is the only notability criteria that really matters. Article should be kept. --Jayron32 06:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 09:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is in fact notable for his holocaust denial. --Eliyak

T·C 01:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the existence of a professor at an elite American university who is also a Holocaust Denier is noteworthy. Wikipedia (rightly) has a set of articles on revisionism. Anybody who wanted to research revisionism would certainly find that this article contributed to his essential knowledge of the abhorrent subject. -- Mpope 15:06, 30 October 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. --Coredesat 06:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baywatch Soundtrack[edit]

I really don't see the point of this needing its own article. One or two sentences of discussion on the theme song can be placed in the main article. There's not enough to talk about to justify a separate article just for this theme song. Cyde Weys 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No doubt this is tied in with the current inexplicable obsession with David Hasselhoff. Merge back to Baywatch anything of note then stronest delete possible with fire and brimstone. Keresaspa 17:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You dont get anything from the article that the title does not give you. Chris Kreider 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 02:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm currently writing I list of all songs played during Baywatch. Other TV shows have similar things like for example LOST soundtrack Samaster1991 18:24, 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 - this does not prevent it being recreated when reliable information is available. Yomanganitalk 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 67[edit]

Contested ProD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom if not sufficiently verifiable or notable.--Jusjih 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Delete - Change nom to delete per discussions below. (Update by Chris Kreider 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)). By far not a UFC fan, but for most of the articles UFC 1 through UFC 66 there is a good amount of content and somebody has put some work into them. Chris Kreider 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment UFC 1 through UFC 66 are not up for deletion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Thank you for that observation. I did not look at it like that. My reference to that was it appears to be a series that somebody puts alot of work into. The first nomination mentioned notable and I was rebutting that. I still think that it deserves a weak keep.Chris Kreider 22:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, I didn't mean to seem so curt. My point is that I'm in agreement with you, in so much as I don't think notability of the sports series is an issue here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepThis is a major competition in major league of a notable sport. It has been definatively scheduled. The fact that participants have not yet been established is NOT a reason to accuse crystalballing. Super Bowl XLI has not yet had its participants established, yet it is notable. The article in question WILL be improved as soon as the competition is completed. Since it is a real competition, it should be keepable. --Jayron32 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a filthy slum of an article full of speculation and will be pretty much mandated by WP policy to be blank if kept. WP:NOT makes it very clear that events like this one, although nearly guaranteed to happen, still should not get an article until reliable information is available. The date is unconfirmed, the location is unconfirmed, and the participants are unconfirmed. Info was taken from the NSAC, which while they approve events, is no guarantee the event will happen as approved (for instance UFC 65 was approved to be in Las Vegas before it got moved to Sacramento.) Lets make it clear that deletion does not automatically prevent an article from being re-created. hateless 17:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I am an active participant in the UFC 1 to UFC 66 articles, and I certainly have no problem with UFC events getting their own articles. However, this event is too far off in the future and is a perfect example of the crystal ball. Notability is not the issue, and when the announcement is made, the article should be re-created. hateless 17:24, 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. --Ezeu 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUST[edit]

non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why has LUST been classed as non-notable but none of these NaSTA Bloomsbury Television CTV (Bath) Demon TV GlamTV Glasgow University Student Television LSUTV Stoic tv Warwick TV Winstanley TV YSTV

Because I haven't got to them yet. Tom Harrison Talk 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existance of other deletable articles has no bearing on the notability of this article. There are many deletable articles on Wikipedia. If you think they should be deleted, then nominate them. However, it is no defense for this one. Make a defense on the merits of THIS article. --Jayron32 06:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If every school has a page for every tv or radio station that they had that would be alot of articles that only people at the school would read. That information is probably available on the school website. Perhaps part of this article could be merged into an article on the school. Chris Kreider 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergetrim down and add to the University of Leicester article.
  • Merge and redirect to parent university article. --Jayron32 06:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree i think its important to have these articles, as many people use wikipedia as there first reference. isn't the point of wikipedia to try collect everything anyone could ever want to know for everyone to access? or is it only for Americans, as i find many american articles unnotable like the fact it seems every secondary school in american has an article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:High_schools_in_Colorado) how are these more notable? (Capt Jack Doicy)

    • reply #1) SIGN YOUR COMMENTS by adding 4 tildes (~~~~)to the end. #2) The existance of another deletable article is NOT a defense of this article. If YOU think another article should be deleted then YOU nominate it. This discussion is about the merits (or lack therof) of THIS article. Familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines relevent to this discussion, especially WP:V, WP:NN, WP:OR WP:RS. If you think an article is worthy, mount a defense with EVIDENCE as set out by these guidelines. If you can't provide the evidence, you won't sway the consensus to your favor, and more importantly, you won't sway the closing admin to your favor. --Jayron32 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of them should be deleted, i'm using them as Precedents particularly to show that if this was page about an american tv station it would not have been nominated for deletion. I apologise for any mistakes i've made in the formatting of this defence, and thank you for the links as it lead me to this, "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." WP:AFDP Student TV and Radio, is based on original content, broadcasts it and has to be licensed to do so. on these grounds LUST and all student TV in the UK fulfills the criteria for notability. unless of course all articles are equal but American one are more equal than others. (Capt Jack Doicy)

    • Change vote to Neutral Excellent! That is a well found defense. Just one question, the particular precedent you cite specifcally says that: "Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable". Many student-radio stations are very low power, and only broadcast "on campus". (for example, WVUD at the University of Delaware.) Others have powerful enough broadcast range to be heard over an entire metro area.(for example WERS at Emerson College. The distinction here seems to me to be the broadcast power and area of the station, not association with a university. I am not familiar enough with this station to make any definative statements. Can anyone confirm one way of the other: Can this TV station be seen throughout the entire metro area, or is this simply run on say, the dormitory cable system and cannot be seen off campus. That would make a huge difference. I would be willing to change my vote to keep if we can get definitive confirmation of the broadcast range of the station in question. A link to an external site that proves that this station can be seen off campus would be VERY helpful. --Jayron32 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable student society. Jack Doicy, Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. "Precedents" are never a good argument on Wikipedia. Robin Johnson (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should stay The Capone of Lesta
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations[edit]

This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While a list of organizations related to the scandal would be useful, this is mearly a list of any organization he has any connection to (scandal related or not). At best it is irrelevant and at worst it is implying that all of these organizations were affected by the scandal. A list of organizations affected by the scandal would be useful, but it appears to be covered with List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients. Koweja 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koweja. Xtifr tälk 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koweja. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save: I disagree that the article should be deleted, at least for now. I think a list of organizations he was involved with is a good idea, for historical purposes. The article could stand editing and deeper research; having his alma mater listed, for example, isn't helpful, and doesn't have anything to do with his political/lobbying career or the scandals. But seeing how he pulled this kind of thing off may help folks see patterns like it in the future. This was/is a pretty big shake-up in the political world, and I think documenting it in as many ways as possible is a good thing. For that matter, knowing his tribal clients is also helpful, again for historical purposes. This information should all be saved; and seriously, completely, totally reorganized from the mess that it is. I will say that as long as this information is contained somewhere around here, I'll be happy. It need not be in this particular article. --Dthatcher 16:34, 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.


List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients[edit]

This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:40, 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 result was merge to Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. --Ezeu 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm reopening this debate. I disagree with the decision to merge. Understanding the Jack Abramoff scandal is hard enough without being able to have useful summaries of different information. Forgive me if I'm not reopening this the right way -- I'm not sure of the right way to do it. Feel free to correct. --The Cunctator 19:33, 29 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 redirect. W.marsh 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Bowes-Lyon[edit]

The article is a stub and is incapable of expansion DrKiernan 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Article has been around for several months with no obvious attemps at expanding it. There are no sources but if she is a queens sister, that could merit some importance. Not enough for a keep nomination though.Chris Kreider 18:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - Change to redirect per the point made by Metropolitan90.
  • Redirect to her father, Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, since all of his children are listed there and substantially all the information in this article appears there too. Since Violet died at the age of 11, there is little chance that this article can ever be expanded. Yes, Violet was the older sister of a queen, but she died almost seven years before Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was born, so she never even met the queen to whom she was closely related. --Metropolitan90 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sister of a queen consort and aunt of a queen regnant. Notable, however young she died. -- Necrothesp 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is disingenuous because she died thirty years before her family became connected to the Royals DrKiernan 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further to that, we are arguing for deletion not on the basis of notability but on the basis of it being a stub article which duplicates material elsewhere DrKiernan 07:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. Uncle G 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, the fact she died "thirty years before her family became connected to the Royals" is irrelevant. She was still a sister and aunt to queens. Many people are interested in royal relatives, whether you are or are not. Second, there are no valid grounds for deleting an article just because it's a stub. This is a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. -- Necrothesp 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect. She did not have an independent title, nor was she the heiress apparent to a substantial title. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am somewhat concerned that the current consensus (Uncle G, Met90 and Chris against DrK and Nlu for delete and Necro for keep) is for redirect or merger. Please note that there are no links to this page, accept from the deletion pages. Consequently, a redirect would be self-defeating, as there are no links to redirect! (If you see what I mean.) DrKiernan 15:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there may be value in linkless redirects, in that users may still type in the name and then get to the redirected article. I had forgotten about that possibility myself, and I'll change my opinion accordingly. (For example, Emperor Fei of Western Wei, which I had created, has a redirect from Yuan Qin (his personal name) even though right now no article links to Yuan Qin.) --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, naturally, I agree that there is a value in linkless directs, as you've just explained. But is anyone likely to put in 'Violet Bowes-Lyon'? I think not. DrKiernan 17:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, somebody created an article under that name, and it wasn't misnamed. I don't have a problem if this article gets deleted, but redirects are cheap so fighting this out doesn't seem necessary. --Metropolitan90 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Simple answer, yes! Why shouldn't they? If I read a mention of a Violet Bowes-Lyon I would likely check it on Wikipedia for exactly the reason that her surname was Bowes-Lyon. It's never a good idea to impose your own perceptions on the Wikipedia habits of others. -- Necrothesp 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Metropolitan90. NawlinWiki 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I'm persuaded that a Redirect is a reasonable course of action. It also means that someone searching for information on her gets the added bonus of the more detailed information on Strathmore's page. DrKiernan 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect editorially to her father, has no independent notability and can easily be covered in his article. Eluchil404 09:59, 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 speedy delete. --Coredesat 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandize Liquidators[edit]

Fails WP:SPAM. Only external link is commercial site. Only internal link is an incorrect link from liquidation (different type of liquidation). Strong suspicion that the creator of this page also created the recently deleted Salvage Liquidators as they share almost exactly the same modus operandi. Legis 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In the case somebody was specifically looking for Merchandize Liqidators, It would seem that Wikipedia would not be a place anybody would look for it. Even if they did, Wikipedia is not an ad agency. Chris Kreider 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure spam. Montco 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11 or Delete per nom. Kill all spam! Xtifr tälk 00:45, 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. W.marsh 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Krishnan[edit]

Delete. There are no sources to verify the claims made in this article. A Google search for the name brings about 180 results (65 "unique"), and none seem to be relevant to the article, or at least the current incarnation of it. It was orginally about a gay-rights activist in Bangalore, and when the prod tag was removed he became a musician. ... discospinster talk 18:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - With article creation date of today, and several edits by the creating editor, none of which add sources or do anything to dispute the AFD, I think it should go. That being said, if the editor adds anything to verify the claims, I.E. being in the magazine or another source, I would be forced to retrat my Delete nomination. Chris Kreider 18:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman Bakatalk 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let us wait for sometime and see whether the editor gives any source  Doctor Bruno  13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article. Google finds no other mention of the collaboration with Zoot Sims claimed in the second paragraph. Kavadi carrier 08:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Comment reply to nominator - What an amazing transformation fom gay-rights activist to musician. Multitasking.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red zero[edit]

This is a non-notable series of books. A search on amazon.com for the author and series produces no results. I also can't find anything on Google about it. GinaDana 17:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If there was some information on a publisher, information on specific titles or even anything that would give a hint of being a published work I would not want to delete. Being ALL of those are lacking, I have to say delete.Chris Kreider 18:49, 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-deleted as self-admitted neologism. ➥the Epopt 14:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dezotell[edit]

Neologism, admitted by the creator at the talk page. Possibly intended as a humorous eponym. Contested prod. Mr Stephen 18:42, 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. Geocities sites are not reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sat/Tan Satanism[edit]

Advertising and WP:BOLLOCKS. Leibniz 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about bollocks, but I've been trying to clean up the advertising. Since I know nothing about it it's been difficult, I've been hoping someone will come along and help me? Kuronue 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep<-s> - Somebody has made an effort to site some sources. Not in wiki notation. Def needs alot of cleanup but I have seen Much worse articles. Chris Kreider 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Two of sites are geocities, literally no reliability whatsoever. ColourBurst 19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete - Change my Vote to weak delete. I dident pay close enough attention to the sources. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Much appreciaten. Chris Kreider 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be properly sourced. I see no reliable sources; all I find is content from Wikipedia mirrors, forums, Myspace, etc. Oh yes, and Geocities. --Kinu t/c 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve - drastically! It is well written but in its current form it will go! I think I proved to myself (not from the article) that it is not a hoax because I found a site that says the sat/tan is a form of "Deistic (or Pantheistic) Satanists" and "The primary two churches which teach Deistic Satanism are the First Church of Satan in Salem, Massachussetts, and the Satanic Reds (who are also, interestingly enough, a Communist group)." [ The Varieties of Religious Satanism By Geifodd ap Pwyll ]. If I wanted to keep this article I would start by removing everything trying to "evangelise the faith" (almost the whole article) and start with the paragraph in link above and fill out a few more details. Once the important parts like who, what, where, when are covered, then think about what other people want to know rather than what believers want to tell others (ideally get someone who is neutral to write it!) If it does just turn out to be two small congregations as the link I saw suggest, then I doubt it will survive as an article on its own - if so try merging it with satanism! --Mike 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I think if I could get some help on the article it could be cleaned up readily. I don't have the time to reasearch the religion, but I did clean up the tone/grammer considerably (check the version before I started editing if you want to see REALLY bad religioncruft), all it needs now are good sources I don't have the time to look for Kuronue 03:14, 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 as OR. --Coredesat 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Influence[edit]

User:Maleabroad has a history of creating unreferenced unsourced POV articles full of strange assertions such as Brahmin Influence on Other Religions and Brahmin contribution to Buddhism which have both been previously deleted, and is a POV Fork. Numerous better and well researched articles exist to cover the same material such as History of Hinduism and links therefrom etc. and on Portal:Hinduism.--Tigeroo 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - A topic that controversial with NO sources has to be POV. Chris Kreider 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Totallly unreferenced. Abraham was born in Ur(Iraq). Solomon didn't bring any jews to india, they came to trade with india arouund 1AD. Well i can go on and on . --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because the subject matter is not really clear, it is impossible to improve the quality. Cheers -- Imoeng 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a weekly magazine for writing fiction.  Doctor Bruno  20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Speedy Delete- I think this article is a threat to communal harmony.Good model of clumsy baseless writing. Delete it as early as possible.Nileena joseph 02:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR. utcursch | talk 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it does have a source. It is not a "threat to communal harmony".Bakaman Bakatalk 04:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sounds like a personal essay; it's all over the place. BhaiSaab talk 05:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Non notable,promoting personal views and some fringe ideology from India TerryJ-Ho 12:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - not unlike what you said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hindu . Bakaman Bakatalk 01:35, 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 delete by admin Xezbeth as A7 (failure to assert notability).--Kchase T 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rahurm[edit]

Not appropriate encylopedia content - appears to be an in-joke. Redglasses 19:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - What is that? Some guys username on a video game. HAHAH, I would love to see that door open in Wikipedia. But yea, speedy delete on grounds Non Notable Group or person (A7), and on the verge of patent nonsense (G1). Chris Kreider 19:24, 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 and redirect to University College London. --MCB 06:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomsbury Television[edit]

non-notable student-run television station. Tom Harrison Talk 19:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - If they had a non parital source to back up there claimed up to 20,000 viewers, it may be notable enough for an article. Chris Kreider 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "up to 20,000" figure sounds like a theoretical maximum anyway. Bwithh 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University College London Koweja 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to UCL as per Koweja Bwithh 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to UCL as suggested. (I detest the use of the phrase 'up to' because it is frequently used in a deceptive and actually meaningless way. 'Brushing with XXXXX can mean up to 50% fewer fillings' What? In thiis article "Up to 20,000" means as few as 0 or as many as 20,000, i.e. it means nothing. If it is meant to refer to the number of students at UCL who just might watch, it is still inaccurate if the WP entry on UCL is correct, claiming 11,000 undergraduates and 7,273 postgraduates,total 18,273. Rant over.) Emeraude 23:06, 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. W.marsh 22:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets plots[edit]

Listing of contested PROD. Delete as this seems to fall under the purview of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. For lack of better terms, this is ad nauseum fancruft/websitecruft. If others see this as encyclopedic, then it could/should be pared down significantly and merged (without actual deletion, of course) into the Neopets article. As it stands, however, there are too many short fragments with "see the actual thing"-style external linkage, the tone is hopelessly unencyclopedic, and I fail to see any reliable sources (i.e., not message boards, fansites, etc.) outside of the actual site which indicate why these plots are notable. --Kinu t/c 20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but edit. Plot results often result in website overhauls, & on a website with millions of users & millions of dollars in yearly revenue, that is notable. As a relatively recent internet phenomenon, reliable sources are sparse; primary source linking will have to carry the day. Step by step summaries of the plots are certainly un-needed, & should be given harsh trimming down. --mordicai. 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should edit out content that doesn't help but should keep the article because of how much importance the plots have to the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superstormfanatic (talk • contribs) — Superstormfanatic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep with Overhaul (or at least lots of cleanup tags to note this is not exactly peoples' priority), or (second choice) Merge a list or summary into Neopets, and (in both cases) move/merge the article as it is now into a Neopets-specific wiki or three, where this detailed format might be more appreciated. —AySz88\^-^ 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Z388 04:34, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Council (Survivor)[edit]

The page is almost an exact copy of the tribal council section on the Survivor page. The only thing on this new page is the tiebrakers, which used to be on the Survivor page, but was taken out by someone (I guess). However, the tiebreakers are still on the Survivor Trivia page, making this a copy of the Survivor main page and Surivior Trivia. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge (if there's anything mergeable) into Survivor (TV series). --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think some work could be put into this article. And, part removed from the survivor series article. Survivor was a pretty big thing. I dont watch the show but if you asked me what came to my mind when you said, "Tribal Council", survivor would be in the top 3. I think the article could be fixed up and quoted in the survivor article. Ie, a note lik,e, "Main article Tribal Council(Survivor). Chris Kreider 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the time when they put the "main article: ????", it's because what's said is just a summary of a much bigger article (the one you would be linking to). This wouldn't be needed since it's almost an exact copy. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "This page is 55 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Someone took that message at its word. Dina 00:03, 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. --Coredesat 06:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tofayte[edit]

Unreferenced; appears to be OR. Although impenetrable jargon, it is not patent nonsense and therefore not a speedy deletion candidate. Prod removed. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7. Despite the odd first paragraph ("Tofayte is a formula for rebirth, new life and mystical Christ." The second paragraph clearly indicates that this is a vanity article for a person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I nominated it for speedy for that reason, but User:Ginkgo100 changed it. Leibniz 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Seems like a vanity article, and is kind of in-coherent. No explanation or background just kind of throws you right into it. I would say Speedy no context (A1), or non notable group (A7). Chris Kreider 22:11, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telbathia[edit]

Non-notable game, google produces nothing on this, mostly how-to guide. Seraphimblade 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Natalie 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a how to guide. It simply explains the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St. Brian (talk • contribs)
  • You may want to look at the D&D entry or a similar entry to see how gameplay is described there. The notability is still a problem, though, even if the article's gameplay section is rewritten. Natalie 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking to get it published though. However, now people can play it! User: St. Brian
  • Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Natalie 21:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possible Speedy under G12. This is a strange one, though: for an apparent vanity/spam article, it's pretty critical of the game, calling it incoherent, stupid, and boring. If you're really trying to get this game published, you might not want this page around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said some people THINK the game is incoherent. oh and this isn't to promot it, I said that it could be used for people who want to play it. That is not the entire purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:St. Brian (talk • contribs)
  • Again, that's really not what Wikipedia's for, read WP:NOT. But again, the main thing here is notability (WP:NOTE) and verifiability (WP:V), neither of which have been addressed yet. Please sign your posts. Natalie 21:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First thing I look for is references in an article. I do not see any references. Def a delete. Chris Kreider 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - No notability at all. There is no way to know if even more than one person knows about this game. It is also an obvious vanity page, as the article says it was created by "Brian Harris" and the username of the creator, sole contributor, and defender is "St. Brian". -- Renesis (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, article is unsourced, not notable and self promoting.—Asatruer 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP: Truly a crime against the grand justice of the Wiki-Elders.-Kinghy 8:11, 31 October 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. --Ezeu 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War (Battlefield 2142)[edit]

Delete this is a first person shooter - what is required beyond one or two paragraphs synopsis on the main page? and/or elements of this incorporated into descriptions of the missions? Charlesknight 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Combination 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Somebody put alot of work into this article. I agree, it is against WP:NOT This editor was bold and put alot of work into the article. I think if I wanted some information on this topic, I.E. my child was playing this game, or something, it might be helpful to me. Kind of torn though between slimming it down and merging it with the main article. Rather err on the side of caution and say keep. At least for now. Chris Kreider 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be helpful if your child was playing the game? Do you mean like a games guide? How does a fictional history help you blast someone in the back of the head with a sniper rifle in a first person shooter? --Charlesknight 09:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does deleting this article do? It is insightful into the backstory to a very popular video game. Theres tons of other useless shit on wikipedia, delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.34.106 (talk • contribs)

  • Gamiafy into Encyclopedia Gamia. This data is still worth keeping in that sense.--WaltCip 13:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This provides a useful plot summary for people who want to know more about the Battlefield 2142 world. IMHO, the briefings when loading a map are very weak but this is good for getting a sense of what is happening. Also, the encyclopedia gamia doesn't even have an article for Battlefield 2142 so what use would a plot summary there be. Outlaw640 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, according the article, all this information is lifted from the game anyway. If this gives more information than the game then it's unfounded analysis and violates WP:OR, and if all this information is 'as is' from the game, then it's indiscriminate information and Wiki is not a game guide, plot synopsis or instruction manual. The Kinslayer 14:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, it's not a substitute for a random fansite either. This doesn't belong here. Combination 15:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's pure fancruft.--M8v2 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Battlefield 2142 -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much detail for the main article, which really doesn't need this dumped on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep

Hello one and all, I'm the original article writer. (Note that as of yet the article isn't finished, as I still have to write up the battles for the African front.) In my defense, I would like to say that the Cold War article was just a fun project by me to see if I could write a serious take on BF2142's storyline. If anyone's noticed, I heavily modeled my article after the WWII article to make it as "authentic" as possible.

Some of you bring up the argument that the information listed within my article is non-factual, that it is fiction, that it is just a "plot summary", so it is unnecessary. Why then are whole separate articles allowed for Warcraft's backstory, and many other fictional plots? Please, if there is some way to salvage my article, then I'll try to do so. As for merging with the actual game article, that is a possibility, but the reason I created a separate article was so that the main article wouldn't be over crowded with information. - Windows2142, posted 6.51 AM GMT 31 October 2006

  • Merge Several video game articles mention the ingame-history, I think this game along with others should as well.--Johnston49er 04:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't presented in a real-world context. Interrobamf 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Battlefield 2142. Not significant enough to have its own article - a paragraph within the article about the game would be sufficient. Cynical 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The creator of the article has a good point. There are thousands of other articles that spill appearantly "useless" information about the given subject. I think this is useful background info because maybe some people want to find out what happened! Just because people say it is fiction does not mean it deserves deletion. No bias please. ARBIH 02:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's bias got to do with it? It does not meet the guidelines for an article on wikipedia - is it bias to follow the rules of the community? --Charlesknight 13:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete but let me know if anyone needs the content to transwiki it somewhere. W.marsh 22:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre Battle classes[edit]

Appears to be a game guide and thus does not comply with WP:NOT. Possibly only of interest to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Combination 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Somebody appears to be following the series, it has a navigation box at the bottm, it is lengthy and possibly confusing. I have seem other video game articles though that have similar content. Not a strong keep because lack of references but could be cleaned up. Chris Kreider 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This type of list/article (listicle?) is pretty common for videogame series. It needs to be cleaned up and made more encyclopedia-like, but not deleted.Koweja 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Actually a lot of lists are being nominated for deletion at the moment, and most of them are getting deleted as indiscriminated infor or game guides. The Kinslayer 08:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup per above, Derktar 00:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, as per above.--TBCΦtalk? 06:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AfD is not cleanup. If it looks like a game guide, tag it for cleanup or exorcize the unsuitable portion yourself. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, because I didn't nominate this for deletion, but looking at the article after it came to my attention, I believe it should be deleted for violating WP:NOT. If I want it deleted, then cleaning up the article is not my responsibility. The Kinslayer 10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • CyberSkull, please read articles before voting. There is nothing here to clean up, and the only way to exorcize the unsuitable "portion" is to delete the entire article, because the whole thing is unsuitable. — Haeleth Talk 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki this article is 100% gameguide and the games in the series are well covered. Because someone "follows the series", the article has a nav box, and that we have other un-removed game guides on Wikipedia are not reasons for keeping this article. The best option here is to move it to a gaming wiki or wiki books. This is not an encyclopedic topic per Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Kunzite 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to clean up because the whole article is a game guide and thus not an acceptable article per Wikipedia policy. — Haeleth Talk 20:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is most certainly NOT a game guide. Wickethewok 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because this is what cleanup consists of here. At the risk of sounding repetitive, WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, this is a lot of work to make a game guide for a really obscure series. A game wiki could have this if they want, but it doesn't belong here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What separates the article in question from this World of Warcraft page? Ogre Battle is a highly-detailed game, but certain aspects of it remain consistant from game to game. Classes are one part of this. It certainly needs a good deal of clean-up, however. Cookie3 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide and this game is pretty unknown (to me anyway) as well. --Hydraton31 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Dekimasu 06:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's not encyclopedic; it's a guide. jesup 04:35, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Raymond Mintz[edit]

non notable biography (contested prod). Natalie 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Delete, but not because of not notable prod, The article is def not POV, the comment, "A leader among leaders" leads me toward the NPOV claim. THe also has no sources, It appears to be all original researc, if you can call it that. Def Delete.Chris Kreider 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: NPOV means neutral point of view which is what we want. POV means point-of-view which is what sentences like "leader among leaders" are. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable QuiteUnusual 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable student, nothing out of the ordinary. Emeraude 23:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Must be deleted 'cause this person is non-notable, and makes encyclopedia like uncyclopedia. Daniel5127 (Talk) 06:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the talk page of this article an unnamed proponent of the article contested the PROD saying: "Michael Mintz is an important campus figure at our University and an entry serves to inform the student body about his history" (emphasis added). The appropriate place to inform the student body about Mr. Mintz's history would be on a University website or the website of the student group(s) he leads. For now, there's no indication that anyone outside the University would learn much about this fellow, but it sounds like he is destined for greater things and he will have an impact on the world around him in the future. And maybe sometime in the future there will be documentary source material ripe for the creation of a new Wikipedia article on Mr. Mintz and his wonderful future accomplishments. But today is not that day. Best of wishes to Mr. Mintz.OfficeGirl 07:40, 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 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pornado[edit]

Contested ProD. NN Neologism. Wikipedia is not: a dictionary, a how-to guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - What is that? definitley not an encylopedia article. Maybye a term you find on one of those slang sex term lists that gets forwarded in email but I doubt even that. Chris Kreider 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incidentally, the advice given in the webpage is hilarious. I don't think there are any porn sites without spyware. Danny Lilithborne 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont get me wrong, i laughed really hard when i saw it. I think most people know EXACTLY what it is describing, just not wikipedia materialChris Kreider 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have no idea what this article is referring to ;) --Steve 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently not yet to be an article, a very low web relevance, e.g. on Google. Though exists in Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pornado), so may be moved to Wiktionary:) --Brand спойт 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism, original research, take your pick. AT BEST this could be transwikied to wiktionary. But I doubt it --Jayron32 06:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are nowhere near enough occurrences in running text to satisfy the attestation criteria. Uncle G 14:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PORN. Anomo 09:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism, material already covered at Pop-up ad, unreferenced/original research, factually inaccurate (your computer is "rendered useless for weeks"), written like a how-to guide, inappropriate person/tone, etc. Khatru2 03:02, 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 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Overlord List[edit]

claim to notability is oblique, but can be inferred to be (1) lots of geeks have heard of this, and (2) somebody once got busted for plagiarizing it in a print publication. But it's thin on a google search omitting trivials (144 hits for an excerpt from the text of the list), and the second test seems irrelevant. I've discussed at longer length on the article's Talk page. Uucp 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Weak Keep (Updated by Chris Kreider 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)) - Not something I know of in my circle, but may be legit. At least has some references but they look a little shady. Especially the one citing his list, and having an accessed date like it was accessed from a professional reference site. If so, Cite the site it is from. Also, has a handful of external links that may be spamish. Overall impression is not enough for Destroy immediatly but a weak delete. Chris Kreider 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list has actually gotten published in a few print works I believe, including Knights of the Dinner Table so it's got some notability of its own. Think of it as a more modern equivalent of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" . FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it floats around the internet enough that even I've heard of it. Additionally, it was involved in the public life of one of Australia's more controversial literary figures, and probably involved enough to warrant its own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i'm surprised more nerds here in wiki=land don't remember it; i certainly do (anspach's list that is). i agree that citations are somewhat weak, but considering the subject matter is something that circulated via e-mail in the earlier days of the world wide web, one would not expect differently. there are plenty of stub articles i've seen in wikipedia with much less information that no one is trying to delete (or even take notice of).
  • Keep I remember this; the arguments don't particularly convince me. Google hits can be made to said many things. --Gwern (contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources can be found. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several in-links. RJFJR 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Highly notable list. Nominator's principle for the Google search is incorrect - since there are many versions of the list, and the list is huge, searching for an exact text excerpt is not guaranteed to get all copies. Search for "evil overlord list": 59,000 Ghits. Here is a copy hosted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and used in her popular lectures on writing science fiction (that's actually a pretty good reference, I'll add it to the article). Here is a "random plot generator" based on it, again from Teresa Nielsen Hayden. There is a newsgroup dedicated to it; here is its FAQ. (Should also be in the article, actually, hang on...) Here is a book compilation using this principle.[38] (That's it, I'm not going to add any more to the article, I'm tired...). AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 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 delete — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Pork[edit]

Non-noteable television show. A Google search for "'Heavy Pork' Kansas" brings up 255 results. The top five are this article and four myspace pages. The remaining articles detail pork barrel spending, agricultural news, and other items that don't involve a television show. It also claims to have won six Billboard Awards and an Emmy. Bzzt. Wrong.a Consequentially 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Those are some strong claims with no sources or references to back it up. If claims are true, then I belive it is notable enough but still a stub. Some serious work would have to go into this article, OR some great sources/referencs for this to be a keeper but still a possibility. Chris Kreider 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The show was entered in the Heartland Regional Emmy contest. Along with nineteen other shows. Anyone can enter the Regional Emmy contest, though, by sending in a tape. That doesn't make it noteable. Consequentially 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Claims are unsourced. Kavadi carrier 08:42, 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 merge and redirect. -- nae'blis 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Chop Square[edit]

Stub was undeniably POV and one source was a blog, but the other seems to be reputable. Was tagged for speedy deletion by a local, so I have brought it here for a wider audience. See also Deera Square. -- nae'blis 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - There is a hole downtown with some water where people go so i will create an article for, "The Watering Hole". Pardon the example but this is defintley speedy material. Verhy short article with No Context. (A7) - Change to Merge Per comments and noms below Chris Kreider 11:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, local slang, short --Steve 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Change to Merge and Redirect per comments below --Steve 02:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The source is legit, and this isn't just a 'local watering hole' -- it's a venue of public executions in Saudi Arabia. A notorious location of government sponsored beheadings seems notable to me, however the article as it currently stand is a sentence so it needs to be expanded significantly (hence the 'weak'). --The Way 05:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to "Deera Square", as it seems to be a notable aspect of that place and well-known even outside Saudi-Arabia. Another reference mentioning "Chop Chop Square": [39] (The Guardian). But there is no reason for two separate stubs on the same square, and even if the chop-chopping may be the most significant aspect of the place, I think the official name is preferable (and less POV). Searching Amnesty International reports may find something useful. up+land 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that there are no sources on the Deera Square article, though there is one on the Chop Chop Square article. However, I assume that Deera Square is the official name while Chop Chop is slang, so a merge to Deera would be appropriate. --The Way 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: Merge is acceptable to me; if Steve rescinds/revises his !vote, we should be able to close this early and move on. -- nae'blis 15:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Deera Square —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 23:33, October 27, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoccerGaming[edit]

This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a month - as a result one must question if it is completely unsourcable. Notability is also uncertain and probably subject to debate. Asp 22:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article is just vanity for the non-notable site administrators and community. Of no interest to anyone outside of their forums. --Steve 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Opening the door for every site like this, it could be alot of article that nobody but people in the community are involved with. Chris Kreider 23:34, 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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 11:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nokian Capacitors[edit]

NN-company DesertSky85451 23:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Sounds like the company has some history. Not like it was some garage company started by some high school drop outs. THe article needs cleanup, and sourcing but it sounds like the company is notable enough for an article. IF, the statements are true and can be sources.Chris Kreider 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) has linked to several potential sources at Talk:Nokian Capacitors in an effort to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 14:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to me that the (somewhat obscure) media coverage of the 10 million Euro India deal and the Finnish award just squeak it through on notability and CORP. -Kubigula (ave) 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:52, 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 11:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoxica[edit]

Complete neologism. Zero hits in Google. De-prodded, by author, without explanation. The article's original author claims to be the originator of the word and the concept. eaolson 23:56, 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 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Pichhadze[edit]

PROD removed by anon-IP; NN-artist, 572 google hits, no claim of notability delete DesertSky85451 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: The behavior of 74.12.103.177 in removing the AfD notice from the page and blanking this page makes me take a shoot-on-sight stance without any further investigation into what looks like a COI entry. This sort of behavior cannot be tolerated. --Groggy Dice 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: could be enough G-hits on an artist, but in this case almost half appear to be listings of Yazi Gallery in Toronto, which mentions him among their roster of artists, and none appear to be reviews in even a local newspaper. Exactly one appears to be one of his students describing him as an "influence", but no indication that she is notable, either. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Touch. The article contains references to all the claims made in it. Moreover, the conduct of Due Diligence on a person via Google (though a great tool fot initial research) is insufficient in and by it self. And a blind reliance on such a tool is unacademic and is subject to error. I suggest that the kind learned reviewers listed above view the article again and review the articles sited (which are not available electronically incidentally). The reviewers should consider contacting the appropriate cited sources and ask or the microfilm and review the artiles. If such steps are not taken, and the suggestionn for deletion is based on the mere fact that the sources are only available in hardcopy, and Wikipedia.org removes the article based on those grounds, then Wikipedia.org falls short of its stated claims. Concerned Wikipidia reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.230.69 (talk • contribs)
    • Note: For bios the article needs to assert notability. It is not for Wikipedia to go out and source all information. That's what you do when you create and edit an article. Vegaswikian 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, google hits are meaningless...where is the real verifiable proof of notability? Green hornet 05:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_26&oldid=1116878364"