Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 5 October 7 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete as non-notable. AdamBiswanger1 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (bar)[edit]

Contested prod, no evidence of any encyclopedic value. --Peta 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pending evidence of notability (searching for Zeitgeist bar on Google doesn't give anything that immediately seems useful). Yomanganitalk 00:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence presented regarding notability, i.e., that this isn't "just another bar." WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. --Kinu t/c 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Kevin 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom; no evidence that it actually exists. Mr Stephen 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Kinu and User:Mr Stephen. JIP | Talk 11:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but get me the phone number of the young lady in the approximate centre of the picture, partially obscured by the blonde. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete entirely unnotable. --Alex (Talk) 14:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Absolutely non essential. Jcam 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been there! It's nice. I'm not a reliable source. Damn. - Richfife 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one place my SF friends made sure to haul my Boston butt to (it definitely exists). Be sure and stop by if you're ever in the Bay Area, it's really awesome. However, unfortunately not article material. Dina 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. The 90s are over. --Aaron 21:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what possible significance does this article manifest? none. Wikipediarules2221 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I seem to recall some murder reported at the club; don't know whether makes it notable, but if it were a school <don't go there>; but couldn't find the google to it, so I must be misremembering. Carlossuarez46 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure they have very good beer tonight, and I wish I was there, but they are NN WVhybrid 00:43, 7 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. There is no plausible place to merge this, however, so I am going to simply make it a redirect. AdamBiswanger1 03:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outfake[edit]

It looks like nonsense to me. Kerowyn Leave a note 00:10, 6 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-- keep AdamBiswanger1 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blair, Minister[edit]

User:Tony164 has added this article and several other ministers to Wikipedia recently. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem very important, with no real achievements other than "having been a minister." I think this falls under WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a geneological record. -Elmer Clark 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages on ministers for the same reason:
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robertson, Minister below. -Elmer Clark 00:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep as I have checked WP:NOT The only criteria that might possibly apply is the one forbidding formless collections of information. These all relate to the the sometimes tempestuous history of a significant parish in Scotland (meaning the people and events are well in the mainstream of Scottish history and not replicated elsewhere). In that, they give exemplary life to broader treatments elsewhere. John Robertson and James Meek wrote siginificant historical documents - still consulted today. Others to be added have had similar significant impact on the history of Scotland in turbulent times. The others you mention (Blair, Houston, Calderwood) are I admit there to fill in the historical record, but this is not formless or meaningless. I have not yet tracked down the criteria for "notability" and will have to take your advice on this, but I would have thought that the sharing of this sort of well established historical knowledge is just what Wikipedia does best. I appreciate not everyone is interested in history, especially local history, but loads are. It's not all pub quiz material! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and cleanup as these appear to be referenced. Or maybe a merge somewhere might be an interesting thought. JYolkowski // talk 00:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Why is he notable? Could this be a hoax? Arbusto 01:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alll None of them seem to be notable. TJ Spyke 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 04:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Robert Blair (minister) and do that for all the other nominated articles (or failing that, Redirect/merge) - Certainly wouldn't delete all. Not entirely sure how notable this minister is but I certainly think the general subject matter is of historical and encyclopedic interest. The page is linked to from Cambuslang clergy, and it looks like the user may be trying to eliminate redlinks one by one? Work seems to have started only a couple of weeks ago, and although it's stalled since then, I'd like to give the editor (User:Tony164) more time to expand it. If nothing comes of that, I'd merge the content back into the main Cambuslang clergy page. --DeLarge 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - random Scottish Vicars are not notable. --Mnemeson 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of it meets WP:BIO, as far as I can see it lists 7 lines telling about his life, and then one line saying he translated a bible. Not notable. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and perhaps move as per DeLarge): The guy was not a random minister, but an author and translator and theologian. Read please the article to the end before voting :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 12:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I did read the articles, and researched them. Robert S Calderwood has his notability asserted as publishing. Googling (which is almost certainly not the best way to research this, but the only simple way) the Patriotism coronation address for which he was apparently known turns up one single result - the WP article. James S Johnstone's big thing was introducing gas lighting to his Church, and riding around "in a large black cloak". I personally don't feel that hymn translation is a notable activity. Bible translation potentially is, but Robert Blair wasn't doing it alone, and I doubt it had a very large effect on the number of people who could access it. At best, give him a line in an article about translation of the bible. Ergo, my vote. --Mnemeson 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Robert Blair, and move per DeLarge. Being a part of the team that translated the Bible into Scottish Gaelic strikes me as a significant enough achievement, and per WP:BIAS translating the Bible into a small minority language is no less significant than translating it into English or French. Weak delete on the other two unless a further case for their notability is made out. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blair per Smerdis of Tlon, Delete Johnstone & Calderwood. The Cambuslang clergy page is also suspect; this is just a history of ministers in basically one parish, not a history of Christianity in Scotland. I could see individual churches in Cambuslang being notable, individual clergy being notable, but I don't see the global view in having a local church history. --Dhartung | Talk 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless it is shown that role in translation of the Bible into Gaelic was big. Otherwise, it appears his contribution was a collaboration. Jcam 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Eusebeus 16:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Jcam; the only notable thing about him is his bible translation; without some showing that he had some major role in that, he's just another non-notable priest. Carlossuarez46 00:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, also seen all the time in AFD. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. Edison 20:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. To English speakers Blair's work might not seem particularly important, but it sounds like he made some important contributions to Gaelic literature. He held some fairly important posts and wrote for a newspaper. I wouldn't say that any one thing is particularly notable but overall it seems enough to be worth keeping. RickReinckens 08:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This article's nomination for deletion should be a lesson in writing good articles. The article simply presents Robert Blair using a series of bland general statements about his life that fail to convey the importance of his contribution to society. The article needs to be rewritten to highlight Blair's contributions (his editorial and translation work), to explain the importance of his work, and to de-emphasize the bland biographical information (such as the exact dates of when he got married, when he moved to Edinburgh, etc.). Otherwise, it is going to look like the biography of an unimportant minister. George J. Bendo 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Mnemeson. --Buridan 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO criteria. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete James S Johnstone, Minister. Non-notable. Not encyclopedic. (Also, middle initial needs a period.) RickReinckens 08:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all articles are properly sourced and thus verifiable. WP:Notability alone is NOT a criterium for deletion. Wikipedia is also NOT a paper encyclopedia. The articles are encyclopedic and verifiable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am extremely confused by this and a couple similar comments at the AfD for the other minister I nominated. Since when is the rule "if it verifiably exists, it's in??" A huge proportion of the deletions at AfD are non-notable bands, vanity pages, etc - these people/bands do verifiably exist, but they are so obscure that there's no real benefit to having them. Do you support keeping such articles? Would you support keeping an article about me, a humble and insignificant student, were I to create and source it? I realize WP:NOTABILITY is not official policy, but the idea of having no notability standards whatsoever is pretty bewildering... -Elmer Clark 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: First of all, there is a big difference between an article about an obscure band with its only source being a Myspace account and an article about minister which is sourced from a reputable book about ministers. In the first case the source is created by the band itself, in the second case a secondary source already considered the minister important enough to include him in the book. Secondly, I am no big fan of the whole notability concept (which, I keep saying, is not official policy), mainly because it introduces a big bias towards American topics. I've seen people nominate very well-known asian artists for example, and even vigorously defend their AfD when confronted with evidence. All because this person was not "notable" (meaning they never heard of it). So, im my book, notability alone is a too slippery slope to be the only reason for deletion, ever. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Robert Blair, Minister. Ministers were more important further back in history than they are today. Gaelic translation activities may be sufficiently noteworthy to meet WP:BIO, and in my eyes, for now are adequate reasons to keep. Delete James S. Johnstone, Minister and Robert S Calderwood, Minister - no assertion of encyclopedic notability. GRBerry 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blair for his literary contributions (but cleanup the article); deletethe other two for failing to meet WP:BIO. Sandstein 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as failing WP:BIO. If we could verify the idea that he was a major factor in the Bible translation, I might be inclined to reconsider. - TewfikTalk 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and protect from recreation. Nufy8 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notd aftermath[edit]

This is what happens when you don't watch your deleted pages. This was previously deleted in one of my most emphatic nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notd aftermath. The reasons why this page was recreated is given at Talk:Notd aftermath, but in addition to the article, this is a multiple nomination. The further articles are nominated:

NOTD is not a notable mod. A google search for "NOTD Aftermath" gives 100 unique links. The only assertion of notability is that it made the "spotlight map" on http://battle.net , note that spotlight maps occur once a week. - Hahnchen 00:19, 6 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 AdamBiswanger1 03:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Small Linux[edit]

Prod tag removed without comment, no evidence is provided that this linux distribution is any more notable than any other.--Peta 00:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep common enough, though the article needs cleanup; not a great set of statistics, but DistroWatch ranks it above Slackware and Debian in lookups over the past year. Opabinia regalis 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Damn Small Linux is perhaps the most well-known Linux distro for business-card CD's and USB thumbdrives. I see it as notable. However the article could certainly do with a clean up and a trim to make it more focused. But I don't think slapping a 'prod' template on the article and now listing it here on AfD is the proper way to motivate people to fix the article. Even if it does result in a cleanup, there are other ways to achieve that result. This is just a waste of time. Imroy 04:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong speedy keep. Damn small linux is the most popular micro linux distro, with a rank of 7 on distrowatch (which means, to all of you non-linux-geeks, that it's the seventh most popular linux distro). It's more popular than Slackware, Gentoo, FreeBSD, CentOS, and Debian itself. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 04:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while I agree this should be kept, a rank of 7 on DistroWatch doesn't make the 7th most popular distribution; just the 7th most popular distro page on their site. They're not measuring actual usage. Opabinia regalis 06:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So-called Portable software is a growing phenomenon as small flash drives increase in capacity and more and more consumer electronics (video game consoles) evolve towards becoming full-fledged desktop computers capable of running alternate OSes. Invariably the content can be expanded as popularity (and enquiries) increase in frequency. Currently there is no portable software article, btw. --Neo 09:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "any more notable than any other" would make it notable enough. Only, I'd rename the article to DSLinux personally. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We already have a DSLinux article. They don't appear to be the same distro at all. --Aaron 21:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if DSLinux didn't already exist, that name is simply wrong. The distro is called Damn Small Linux, and so should the article. Using an uncommon (and ambiguous) shortening of the name is inappropriate. --Imroy 02:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, quite notable as one of the premiere compact linux distributions. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Damn Small Linux is a rather widely used disto. It is just as deserving of having its own page as say Gentoo. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Probably the most notable non-commercialized Linux distro there is. I do agree that the article could use a little more notability evidence. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep keep keep heqs 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems plenty N to me. --Aaron 21:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Damn Small is certainly a notable enough distro to warrent keeping. It's one of the few distros created solely for use on really old computers. Infact, it was the first Linux distro I ever used. BWF89 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without this page people looking for a small linux Distro may have trouble finding this one. Also It's good for people on dial up.--Dr.-B 08:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I found it useful. SGC
  • Keep PureLegend 10:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep among the best known of small Linux distributions. Also causes a lot of confusion. ("Yes, I'm using DSL?" "So you use DSL? Er...") --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is one of the more notable compact Linux distros. --Kuroki Mio 2006 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable linux distro and article is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Vic sinclair 05:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the comments above, this is a WP:SNOW candidate. Yamaguchi先生 23:22, 9 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 keep. AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Robertson, Minister[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Blair, Minister above. I think that this guy should be deleted under the same critera, but I feel his is a little less clear-cut, so I've listed it seperately. -Elmer Clark 00:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, verifiable (and somewhat better than the other ones). JYolkowski // talk 00:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to John Robertson (minister). T REXspeak 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move per Dino puppy, and list at John Robertson. JDoorjam Talk 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per large carnivorous dinosaur --DeLarge 09:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Might I ask which of his achievements you keep voters feel is significant enough to warrant his inclusion, especially as opposed to the other nominated ministers? -Elmer Clark 22:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement that the subject of an article be significant. This article meets our content policies very well (with three references as opposed to just one for the others). JYolkowski // talk 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, excuse me? I am aware that WP:Notability is not official policy, but you say that subjects of articles don't have to be significant at all? I could create a referenced article about myself, would you favor keeping it? -Elmer Clark 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually yes, as long as those were third party reliable sources I (and the rules) would have no problem with a page about your self. AmitDeshwar 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPlease note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to create a standard for notability of religious leaders. Some should have articles, if, for instance they are an official of their denomination churchwide, or they started some important movement, wrote widely used hymns, or were notable in ways special to religion. They probably should not have an article if they were just a typical priest, rabbi, or mullah serving a local group. We have such standards for Porn actors and sports figures, and it would save a lot of argumentation. I have also started a discussion for standards of notability for individual churches, also seen all the time in AFD. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches.Edison 20:27, 7 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Jewelers Association[edit]

No verified evidence of notability or encyclopedic value. --Peta 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Slightly spammy too. MER-C 04:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. No apparent notability outside the context of its parent organization, which may not satisfy inclusion guidelines either. --Kinu t/c 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOT and WP:ORG per nom. Jpe|ob 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:26, 6 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 article as written is junk, but from personal knowledge I can tell you that the term is a real pejorative, quite widespread, and could easily merit an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsim, The Ars[edit]

No evidence to show the reality or notability of the term. --Peta 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable slang term, if not a fake. Opabinia regalis 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the talk page it is a real term, but this article is wrongly titled and is unverifiable original research (and I'm not sure it isn't just an excuse to write "arses"). Yomanganitalk 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, also possible attack page. JIP | Talk 11:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Yomangani. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and WP:OR --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Wish we could find an applicable speedy criterion. Cool3 15:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if a real term, the article is commentary and lacking any sources. Agree that "arses" might be the reasoning for this. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 01:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pedia-I 18:18, 10 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. -- Steel 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo hunt and peck[edit]

Seems to fail WP:NEO. No sources are given as to this phrase's widespread use. Crystallina 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hunt and peck typing. It does seem to be used occasionally (about 2 google hits on forums), so is a possible search term. Yomanganitalk 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redicect and merge a maximum of one sentance to Hunt and peck typing per Yomangani. I think we can sefely lose the last sentange about Tony Recchia "creating and perfecting" it. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two hits on Google forums isn't enough to even keep this around as a redir. Delete per nom. JDoorjam Talk 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appending "turbo" to something doesn't necessarily warrant a separate article -- especially when it doesn't appear to be a common term. Kevin 07:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really surprised no one's made a "turbo delete" joke yet. JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:28, 6 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. Prodego talk 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Baptist College[edit]

Delete per no notability. An unaccredited "college" that offers "degrees" in subjects like "Secretarial Studies". I can't find a figure on how many people attended, but I assume its small since the church, Longview Baptist Temple that operates it claims that the church has 3,000 members. Moreover, looking at their website the Bob Gray, "founder" of the college, is constantly referred to as "Dr." without mentioning his doctorate is honorary and from Hyles Anderson College (an unaccredited institution.) This is telling of some problems of WP:V on its website. I get 3,000 yahoo hits for "Texas Baptist College" which included this article and places not related to this subject. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. Arbusto 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. It is a "ministry of the Longview Baptist Temple", also listed for deletion today. Either delete or merge with that article if it isn't deleted. QuiteUnusual 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nom. --The Way 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a significant institution. Gazpacho 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, though I honestly could not care less about this school one way or the other, I would point out that though it is unaccredited it still has had students, at the same time it has controversy and respect as well. The fact is some people may wonder about this school that want an unbiased opinion, I would never have known it existed until I saw it on wikipedia, plain and simple that is one of the great things about wikipedia, there are millions of things listed in standard encyclopedias I may never read but at the same time there may be somebody who needs to, by chance, no something, I do not find it notable, but it may be useful to someone else. The school's site is biased, wikipedia, is supposed to be an unbiased rescource for those searching, also there are many schools on here that are unaccredited, though I do think that this article should be kept I do not feel that the church article should be I feel that if anything the church article should be a section of the College article. --MJHankel 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding your claim that it "has students", does it? Please provided WP:V of how many students it has. If it has a lot that might establish notability. Your claim that basically everything should be kept (even though you may not read it) isn't a reason for inclusion, and in fact goes against wikipedia policy. --Arbusto 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Frankly I do not know but there has been a book written about it, from one of its alumni, beyond that I do not know, Like I said I never had heard of it before but it just seems as though there are other Unaccredited colleges listed and it just did not seem that there was any real reason to not list this one. I am just trying to expand and keep info on all subjects, frankly either way it does not much matter to me personally. I am just trying to make an appeal for this article. --MJHankel 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please give a reason for inclusion based on wikipedia policy. Your claim that everything should be included is absurd. Arbusto 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment As I said there was a book written about it called The Texas Baptist Crucible[1] so in that sense it is notable other than that I do not care plain and simple I honestly do not like in anyway Independent Baptist Fundamentalists look under controversies on Hyles Anderson College, William Andy Beith was my principal, I was at that school when it all went down,.. so basically this is not a biased argument I am simply stating that it is somewhat notable for its controversy which I am positive is more than this especially sense the founder/chancellor of this school "Bob Gray" was also the founder of another highly controversial school in florida Trinity Baptist College, either way I fill that if for no other reason than controversy this article may be important.--MJHankel 05:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. Arbusto 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that that is a confusion. The comments on Amazon and on various blogs and forum posts (yes, I know, not WP:V — just listen a sec) seem to indicate that the book discusses both, possibly because they are so intertwined. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe one day when this can pass WP:V and there is more than forum posts this article can be recreated. If the "book" is so important to the article then why not include it? Seems strange to cite something as a reason for keeping an article without entering it into the article. Arbusto 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete: Those suggesting this outfit is trivial clearly don't live in East Texas. This is a sizeable (if a bit odd) organization that is one of the major religious and social institutions in East Texas. I don't know the numbers, but they fill busload after busload of congregants every Sunday from as far away as Dallas (130 miles). No, it isn't world-famous; but anyone who lives in Longview or any of the surrounding towns is well aware of it, has likely had dealings with it in some way, and understands that it is quite influential in the region. Its accreditation or lack thereof really doesn't have much to do with it's overall influence. This is a substantial, locally influential, controversial institution - if that doesn't make it worthy of an entry, then I just don't understand the criteria very well I guess.Ritwingr 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is Ritwingr's first ever edit. Arbusto 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At first, I had trouble understanding the problem, too, but let me see if I can explain it. All of this controversy is potentially VERY notable ... but we don't have sufficiently solid sources to demonstrate that controversy yet. (The Spurgeon book doesn't yet count because none of us seem to be able to address whether it talks about TBC or only about the church.) If you look at the Hyles-Anderson College article mentioned above, you see that newspapers have written about problems there (just one example). If you live in East Texas, you may be able to find verifiable sources that those of us using online searches can't find; for example, have the Longview News-Journal or the Tyler Morning Telegraph published stories? I also wonder whether any specifically Baptist papers or papers of other Baptist colleges have written about it; I know that when the International Churches of Christ were getting started, a paper called The Christian Chronicle was writing about the movement long before major newspapers and TV stations or networks started covering the topic. Consider whether you or someone you know has access to such sources, and if so, post here any information you find. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wikipedia does not keep articles based on "potentially notable" articles. Arbusto 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the nominator can explain how having an entire book published about the folleys of this school somehow make it "not notable". I see several things notable about this school, non-accreditation != non-notability. Silensor 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please name those several things that make it notable; I see nothing in the article. The book is about the CHURCH, and its self-pusblished! Regarding the self-published book: church!=school. Also accreditation is required in Texas to give degrees.[2] The article currently states they give degrees. That is a serious WP:V issue. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Silensor is right... just because it isnt an accredited school doesnt mean it cant be notable... It could be quite infamous for many reasons... This school in particular has a book published about all of its mistakes. That means the information is verifiable, and therefore should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it notable? How many "students" attend? Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Silensor and Alkivar. bbx 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a school inclusionist voter. Reasons for keeping (per others) are addressed above. Arbusto 01:55, 13 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, Arbusto 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could we have a WP:V independent from the "college" that there is a classroom? A student body? Regular staff? That this "college" is authorized to give degrees? I ask because Texas requires accreditation to award degrees.[3]--Arbusto 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any school that is the subject of a lurid exposé of its "cult-like environment" is notable in my book. Besides, what other institution of higher learning offers degree programs in "Church Maintenance and Mechanics". The Buddhists only offer bike maintenance at their schools. Given the notability of teh school, the nominator's unsupported concerns are irrelevant. Alansohn 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alansohn, do you have any citations for this "lurid exposé" of which you speak? Also, delete per nom. Vectro 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The SINGLE "book" (by a former member of the church) is about the CHURCH. The publisher of this 2006 book is PublishAmerica, which is a self-publishing company.[4] According to that Washington Post article, "PublishAmerica does use POD technology -- saving manufacturing and warehousing costs by not producing a book until a consumer actually places an order." The church was not notable enough for wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple and was DELETED. The only source that is being cited to make it notable is self-published. Self-published sources are not allowed per WP:RS. Hence the article should be deleted. Arbusto 06:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A student number would be important here. Seeing that the staff number is 20, and that a bunch of those are probably non-teaching, that means there's probably only 10-15 instructors at this place, and thus the student number must be tiny. -newkai t-c 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. People voting keep on any and every school are getting a bit tiring, and this is a good example of what is so annoying about that behaviour. If an article doesn't pass the standards set by our policies (and seems unable to do so even after researching it), it should go. Fram 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per lack of WP:V from reliable sources. It appears the main sourcing being offered for keeping this is the vanity published book about the church which is not sufficient. No clear case for notability has been made here and nobody has offered any sort of reliable sourcing for even the basic existance of this school.--Isotope23 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation of verification of student numbers etc. is found Cynical 22:08, 13 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 11:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longview Baptist Temple[edit]

Unnotable church. Article claims it has 3,000 in attendence, but this is not sourced. Fails notability and doesn't even assert any. Arbusto 01:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I haven't decided on this one either way. Academics have apparently documented the congregation size on a list of megachurches. There is a book about the church, albeit a self-published one. One commentator describes the place as notorious, suggesting it's notable at least within some particular community. Other people apparently agree. However, I haven't seen a lot of WP:RS-friendly material to make an article out of, so I've mainly limited myself to removing the occasional vandalism that is presumably from the LBT people themselves. I think I'm leaning toward a keep, but I'm open to persuasion or new evidence. William Pietri 02:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding your claims:

1) Yes, the church is listed among 1,300 other US churches. It claims attendance is 3,000 meaning it is as big as a high school on Sundays. 2) That book is published by a pastor at the church. It does NOT prove notability because any pastor can write about his church, self publish it, and list it at amazon.com 3) Yes, there are blogs that mention it. I don't see any that meet WP:V, which can establish notability?

I could be wrong, but how do these prove notability for inclusion? Arbusto 02:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's one of many megachurches; I don't know what the threshhold is, but I thought I'd mention it. The book is actually by a pastor at a different church; he was a former LBT member and his book is an expose. I know that blogs aren't reliable sources, but the amount of discussion about it suggests to me that it may be notable. Naturally, all facts in the article should be verifiable, and blogs don't count for that. As I said, I'm not sure which way to go on this, but I thought I'd post what I turned up i my research. William Pietri 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. --The Way 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Eusebeus 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, on the above evidence it doesn't seem notable. EdJohnston 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that overstates the case. There are very few churches that have entire critical books written about them. This may not be notable (I haven't made up my mind yet) but it's pretty far from cruft. William Pietri 04:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • mergeI beleive that, no, this church is not notable in and of itself but it is notable as the founding control of Texas Baptist College, though that page is up for discussion as well if you will read what I said on that discussion, The college is needed on wikipedia if only to provide an unbiased opinion of the school, providing both the controversial and the positives. --MJHankel 03:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that I have started a discussion topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability to create a standard for notability of individual churches. We have a standard for schools, so why not for churches. We reinvent the wheel arguing over each individual church as to what the global criteria should be. Size definitely should not be the only criterion, any more than it is for schools. Edison 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It should be noted that MJHankel (talk · contribs)'s reason for keeping Texas Baptist College is because be wants every article kept no matter what sources of WP:V issues. See his comments on that afd. Arbusto 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment as should also be noted, I said all topics not all things Colleges Are much more notable than churches, Encyclopedias are supposed to contain a vast knowledge of the world, I have not and will never claim tat all articles should be kept, Had the college not have controversy related to it I would not find it notable either. --MJHankel 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. (Read the above.)Arbusto 06:29, 9 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 assertion that this is a "useful" list doesn't really stand up to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Steel 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ...for Dummies books[edit]

This is a huge unsourced list of books that have the title "...for Dummies". This list does not meet is what WP:ISNOT. This is a copied list stolen from the publisher's website, and all it will ever be is an out date second list.

This was nominated in March and reached no consensus. Many votes included "keep and clean up," its been a half year and the list is not different.

  • Delete and redirect to ...for Dummies. Arbusto 23:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What kind of source do you need for the existence of a book published by a major publisher, other than the title? Gazpacho 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher, the ISBN number, the year it was published would make the books more WP:V, but it would still just be a list. And lists of indiscriminate info is what WP:ISNOT. Are they written by one publisher? If so the article doesn't claim that. Arbusto 23:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary list which doesn't even link to articles about any of the books. Perhaps a category would be appropriate, if one does not already exist. --NMChico24 23:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/rewrite/clean up this could be an article if there were editors to add reliable references, otherwise some of the things in there could be made up.--Andeh 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's now sourced, so the unsourced complaint is no longer relevant. Fg2 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to this link as a "source". I don't get it? I see ads to a podcast and information on backpacking. Care to make your source more specific for this list? Arbusto 00:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It contains links to the categories. See the links on the left side. It is the web site operated by the publisher for the series of books. Fg2 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then this wiki article is a copy and paste from that website. For example, compare Dummies: Computing all databases Titles to wikipedia dummies database titles. What point does this article serve if it is the exact same as the publisher's list, only the publisher's list is more accurately maintained. Arbusto 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two of grounds for deletion are incorrect. It's certainly verifiable, given that you can check the titles against the publisher's catalog, which is certainly reliable enough. Not to mention the Library of Congress, Amazon, and whatever else is available to the book ordering trade. So we have only WP:ISNOT, particularly 1.7.3 to argue about. And that's where I can say as a list, this has some potential use, if any of the titles warrant further elucidation, even a whole article. I'd suggest making this part of the main article, but then we'd have problems with that growing unmmanageable. FrozenPurpleCube 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, since the Publisher's catalog might remove books once they're out of print, I'm not inclined to rely on it. Still, the ...for Dummies article could use a bit more about the categories of books. FrozenPurpleCube 00:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article could use more info. In other words, let it grow. Fg2 01:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft which verges on WP:SPAM. The series is notable - individual titles aren't, and a list of titles in the series is not encyclopedic Bwithh 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty much FrozenPurpleCube said it all. The article needs some work and ive volunteered to put in that work but the article kept getting deleted through a redirect. If the redirect war stops and the article is maintained it will subsequently be cleaned up. A very useful list, however, and should be kept.Bagginator 01:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nothing has stopped anyone in the last six months since the first afd from improving it. 2) How do you plan to "improve it"? That is, what can be done to improve it? Arbusto 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split them into individual articles. Useful list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable series of books, we have articles for really off-beat episodes of long-cancelled t.v. shows that were rarely seen outside their own country; these books are literally everywhere. Carlossuarez46 03:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I advocated before. This is a mirror of a list which is available online from an authoritative source. The list at the publishers is complete, accurate and up to date - our list is not guaranteed to be so as new books are published all the time. Previous and present keep arguments often rested on the fact that ...for Dummies books are notable; that is not questioned, but we already have an article on ...for Dummies books, this is just a list of them at an unspecified date. There are precisely zero bluelinks to individual books, making this list considerably less useful than the one on the publisher's website, which has a short synopsis for each book. This list violates WP:NOT as both a directory and an indiscriminate collection of information (why this particular publisher's catalogue?). This is simply a copy and paste of the listing on the publisher's website on an unstated date; "do not add copies of primary sources". Guy 08:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a duplicate of a list on the publisher's website, all it will ever be is an out-of-date version of that list. A link provides better information to readers. Sockatume 13:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a book catalogue. The Land 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous AfD. This is one of the true publishing success stories of the last 20 years. We obviously need the list if we want to be a serious reference work, that goes beyond video games characters, obscure porn stars or irrelevant diploma mills. Nominator cites wp:not without referring to a specific clause- not really surprising since none apply. Concern over lack of sources may be valid, although nothing prevents the nom from adding sources. In fact, few of our hundreds of book lists have sources, essentially because the publication of the book proves its existence. Examples include List of cookbooks, List of political memoirs, or List of fictional books, etc. Ongoing discussion on talk page showed interest in improving the list, something this nom ignored when making this nomination. --JJay 14:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are comparing a list of political memoirs and fictional books? Those lists contain notable authors and political figures created by wikipedia. This list is stolen from one publishers page without asserting any significance. Arbusto 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those lists are incomplete, lack clear inclusion standards and have no references. This list has the potential to be complete and has clear inclusion standards. Otherwise, you are certainly entitled to fail to see the significance of the Dummies series, but the significance is clearly implied, not the least because we have an article on the series. --JJay 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... most lists on wikipedia are incomplete. What's your point? --Arbusto 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that this list, unlike those, has fewer problems with the completeness of the list. If it's missing a title or two, that is easily correctable, and more likely because a new title was just released than any actual problem. And there's no question that the ...for Dummies series is itself notable. FrozenPurpleCube 01:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The series is notable that's why it has an article: ...for Dummies. This is a list taken from the publishers website of titles. Arbusto 01:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and since people may have an interest in knowing whether a particular book in the series has been published, well, I see the purpose of this list. Sorry, but the summaries in the main article are incomplete, and making them exhaustively complete would just be excessively detailed. Thus the seperate list. FrozenPurpleCube 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 15:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JJay is committing bad faith to make a WP:POINT on my afds. He voted keep here, but in an effort to keep an unnotable diploma mill he wrote [5]"However, copying diploma mill names from government websites in order to construct a pseudo-official diploma mill list at wikipedia... It violates both the meaning and spirit of the list guidelines." Clearly, if he really believes copy and pasting a list is a copy-vio and not wiki-worthy he would vote delete here. This is user is gaming the system and following around my afds. Note I have had trouble with this user since April. Arbusto 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's an intersting comment and an interesting use of taking my words out of context from an unrelated article. I'll let slide the series of absurd and non-sensical accusations. But try to stick to the merits of this list. It shouldn't need reminding, but that is why we are here. --JJay 02:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding you'll "let it slide" because its true. Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation? If yes, change your comment on this afd. If no, change your comments on the institute afd. Arbusto 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that is true is that you seem to be unwilling to engage in a rational debate concerning the merits of this article. My vote stands in keeping with the previous AfD. However, if you have copyvioed material here I would have no objection to its removal. See WP:Copyvio. --JJay 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unwilling to engaged in a debate ? You have reverted my comments and questions with a minor mark.[6]
Removed my comments again.[7] --Arbusto 06:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer this: Is copy and pasting a list a copyright violation as you said here[8]? Arbusto 03:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AGF doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the obvious. JJay has consistency done this to my edits since April; see his talk page or another ongoing afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM). Arbusto 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done nothing to "your edits", nor does anything you are talking about have anything to do with this article. You nominated this list for deletion and I voted keep, just like I did in March [9]. Try to make a case for deleting this without resorting to innuendo, insinuation, personal attacks and unrelated accusations. --JJay 22:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deny changing my edits? What about this[10]? On this very page with you keep vote you managed to insult and undermine this afd and those who voted delete ("something this nom ignored when making this nomination") and contradicted yourself(you mentioned "unnotable" porn stars-- something you vote to keep[11]). Why don't you make a case for keeping an article by actually doing work to improve it? When was the last time you actually editted an article? Arbusto 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I generally remove trolling from my user page, as is my right (and you were warned not to post belligerent messages there). The rest of your comments have nothing to do with this list. Once again, you seem merely interested in making accusations and personal attacks, rather than convincing keep voters that this should be deleted. --JJay 22:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original data. Dr Zak 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Praytell, how is this original data? Yes, measuring the temperature outside your window is original data/research, but this is merely an index of books. It's about as original as looking in the paper to see what the election results are... FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a directory (as opposed to a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia), called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say delete as it has not been improved during the six-month time span. "keep and clean up", yeah right. Punkmorten 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relisting for more opinions. Arbusto 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Wikipedia is not a directory. TJ Spyke 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable series of books. Clay4president 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the ...for Dummies page is for. This is nothing more than a list of all the books. It's just listcruft. TJ Spyke 03:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. This is of barely any use to anyone, and if someone actually wanted to know it, they could just go to the official site. What's more, it's borderline copyvio. Ultra-Loser Talk | BT sites 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, unencyclopedic. The list is outdated and redundant, even though there are sources, it has zero encycloepdic value. --Terence Ong (T | C) 07:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete the entire Wikipedia database. To say an article should be deleted as its somewhere else on the web is ridiculous, as practically the only way Wiki verifies articles is if you can find alternative sources that back up that information on the web! IE if you can get the exact same information from another website. Jcuk 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not only a duplicate of other content, but it's also outside Wikipedia's remit. It's merely a directory, and no effort has been made or, indeed, can be made to make this a useful navigation tool for Wikipedia content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the publisher's list only included current in-print books and we listed out-of-print books, AND we included ISBN references and listed authors for each individual title, AND we had articles on individual books then I might be inclined to change my mind. But right now it's just copyvio listcruft, and according to the article it's over six months out of date. It seems like the logical thing would be to delete this and just add the external link to the ...for Dummies page. --DeLarge 09:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the sheer number of ...for Dummies books, I'd in fact split it further. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a personal note, I am apalled by the lack of civility in this AfD discussion. But I agree with JJay; the clause of WP:NOT needs to be identified if it is to apply as evidence for supporting deletion. And while he has contributed subsequently to the downfall of civility in this discussion, I don't agree that JJay's original Keep vote insulted anybody. His points were all rational regardless of anybody's judgement on their applicability. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge with ...for Dummies or make a category, but only if the books have articles themselves. --Alex (Talk) 14:21, 6 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 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyemmory[edit]

Protologism - no Google hits at all, no verification offered. PROD was removed, so nominating here. Calair 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (nominator vote). Googling for 'polyemory' (one 'm') produces seven hits, most or all of them misspellings of polyamory. Note also the first version of the page, which made specific and untrue claims about e.g. UK law, which does not speak well for accuracy of the rest of it. --Calair 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mdwh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to polygamy, then Protect. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you redirect? It is not in use, not a probable misspelling or search term... Keeping it as a redirect gives it way too much weight. Delete, allright, but I don't get the rest of your choice. Fram 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, term has no proven usage and is an unlikely typo for a redirect. -- nae'blis 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. -- Merope Talk 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Delete and Redirect to polyamory, which is probably what this is supposed to be. --Mysmartmouth 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR Made from thin air WVhybrid 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a valid alternate spelling of polyamory or polygamy. Eluchil404 07:45, 11 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 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shanica Knowles (character)[edit]

Redundant, already an article: Shanica Knowles bibliomaniac15 01:19, 6 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 CSD G11 -- Samir धर्म 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc LaSalle (http://www.marclasalle.com)[edit]

Does not meet criteria in WP:PORNBIO -Nv8200p talk 01:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete clear vanity. Danny Lilithborne 01:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Frédérick Lacasse 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD-G11. Single purpose account dedicated to pushing that website. Resolute 02:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G11. Super-blatant vanity.-- danntm T C 02:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD G11 Vannity. Hello32020 02:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete but worth a quick read for some hilarious attempts to claim notability. Actual quotes: "Marc is a versa-bottom in every sense of the word!" and "I could not believe my ears when I learned that he was also a major fisting talent!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 6 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, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retatta[edit]

Delete, WP:NOT a cookbook for recipes that fail WP:RS; seems to be a vanity page of some sort. --Kinu t/c 01:46, 6 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. Punkmorten 10:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federation Without Television[edit]

This group is not-notable (GHits return WP/mirrors and a few directory listings). ju66l3r 22:26, 28 September 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, W.marsh 01:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's not much information out there, and what little there is points to this being a rather small group. There are a surprisingly large number of Google hits, but very little of substance. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:35, 6 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 concensus - Yomanganitalk 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insider Pages[edit]

Does not establish notability per WP:CORP. Was deleted via prod on July 26; recreation counts as contested prod, so nominating for regular AfD. --Alan Au 22:30, 28 September 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, W.marsh 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The linked-to NY Times article (only just) establishes notability as per WP:CORP. The fact that it was only a single article (i.e. not multiple sources) is mitigated by the fact that it's the NYT, which is pretty high profile as far as media coverage goes. Also, the chief "rival" in that article, Angie's List, has a page on WP as well. Neither company's article is overly self-aggrandising either, which counts in their favour. --DeLarge 10:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My keep is no longer weak now that User:Uncle G has cited a second source (see below). Notability now established beyond doubt as far as I'm concerned. --DeLarge 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per DeLarge --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do this C:NET News article and this C:NET News article, both by Stefanie Olsen, help? Uncle G 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a startup content aggregator that managed to finagle NYT coverage and reference on CNET. That does not mean we should suspend WP:CORP; as far as the importance of sources go, whilst I am in general agreement, I feel that a mention in the NYT does not automatically confer notability - indeed, it should refelct notability, which in this case is lacking. Eusebeus 16:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Nom and Eusubeus, and because it's full-blown spam. Article history shows it was created by an SPA who created the article, inserted links to it on articles about his competition, and walked away. Doesn't meet WP:CORP at all, IMHO. --Aaron 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep Other reviewers have found additional articles since I first entered a comment. So, according to the letter of item #1 of WP:CORP (multiple non-trivial mentions in the press), we should be keeping it. The article itself seems quite boring, however. When I look at the Angie's list article I see more about the actual impact that the web site has had, and the reactions of the users. The Insider Pages article says, 'This is a company active in local search, and it has X thousand listings'. Not too enlightening. EdJohnston 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:Corp. As well as the New York Times and CNet, a Google News Archive search shows coverage by Business Week, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes as well as other sources. [12]

Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:Corp. Englishrose 13:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:Corp, read the conditions!! --MaNeMeBasat 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by even the strictest interpretation of WP:Corp (see criterion #1). A cursory search of the web turns up multiple articles from CNet News, Business Journal, and the New York Times, of which this company is the direct subject. --FortyHertz 15:15, 11 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delinquency among boys without mothers[edit]

Original Research maybe? --FlareNUKE 02:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete boys without mothers? I guess these delinquents sprang forth fully formed from the sea. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. I suspect they were right behind Athena but nobody noticed them, leading to feelings of inadequacy that, in turn, caused their delinquency. JDoorjam Talk 06:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing vote per discussion below. JDoorjam Talk 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. JIP | Talk 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems almost exactly the opposite of OR to me. The article gives a timeline of various scholarly studies with what seems to me to be a neutral voice, and gives multiple references at the bottom. I would say the individual subsections should certainly be footnoted point by point, but otherwise this article seems to be an overview of other people's work, not original work by the article author. Isn't that exactly what wikipedia asks for? -Markeer 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Complete re-write and shorten to extract pertinant information and add to John Bowlby. Always wary of anything that starts Research suggests and Studies show as OR. Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite (perhaps even merge). The problem itself is encyclopedic and the article cites its sources.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Bowlby, or else Delete. The article contains info on the research by Bowlby, a test done of the research of Bowlby, and a completely unrelated test (having nothing to do with delinquency!). So for the largest part this is an OR rendition of the reseach of Bowlby. Fram 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly OR, but it does not read like an article, but more like an essay of ideas. --Alex (Talk) 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the form of this article is not completely encyclopedic, but the article itself is interesting, it has a neutral tone, it is well referenced, and it pulls together stuff from many different places. If someone came forward who had a good plan for refactoring, I wouldn't mind if this article disappeared and was merged into some more orderly article, but as it stands, it's worthwhile. EdJohnston 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepClearly notable and not OR. Research on this topic dating from Bowlby's post-WWII study of childhood separation and subsequent psuchological development has been in psych textbooks for decades. TDelinquency is a major issue in today's urban areas. It can benefit from judicious editing.Edison 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, requiring cleanup or Merge and redirect to Bowlby. JubalHarshaw 14:21, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Axure Software Solutions[edit]

Contested prob. Non-notable company. Artw 20:28, 28 September 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, W.marsh 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hello32020 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm concerned about potential ostriching, as the company is relatively well-known among developers and project manager-types who have a use for RP Pro. I'd almost go as far as suggesting that it's as notable as Adobe Photoshop was to graphic designers in its earlier iterations before the advents of consumer digital photography and abundant bandwidth. Kevin 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OSTRICH talks about reading the relevant notability criteria and performing searches to find supporting documentation for rationales. So where are the results of your search to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied? All that you have given us is a bare assertion that you, personally, think that this company is notable (and compared it to a software product) with no sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CORP (1) could arguably be satisfied by either of the following links: [13], [14]. A simple Google search on "axure" nets 58,000 hits. It certainly isn't Microsoft-scale, but in all fairness, the nom hasn't provided any sort of rationale beyond their assertion that they, personally, think that this company is not notable. Kevin 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing exactly the same as the nominator at the same time as criticising the nominator, is bad form. Now to the sources, which is what we should be looking for and looking at. Now we're getting somewhere. They actually discuss the product, not the company. There isn't anything in either that says anything about the company itself, apart from that it is the company that makes the tool. The first would certainly go some way towards satisfying WP:SOFTWARE for an article on Axure RP. What we need for an article on the company is something that actually discusses the company. Uncle G 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I happen to believe there's a difference between devil's advocacy and "bad form", but in any case, I can see where you're coming from. In further searching, it doesn't seem that Axure is notable in and of itself, but I would contend that the RP Pro product is. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adobe Photoshop makes pictures: something the average layman can understand and take an interest in. This has something to do with software development, and as such the description of their flagship product's intended uses is vague and sketchy: a full solution for the application design process and included features to manage marketing requirements, diagram sitemaps and logic, design interfaces, generate prototypes, and generate specifications. This will always be a rather obscure offering, and the article doesn't make a good case for notability othewise. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All things being equal, "Photoshop makes pictures" is akin to "Visio and Axure RP make flowcharts". I don't think what a layperson understands is necessarily sufficient criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but strip the article of the marketing mumbo-jumbo. Pronto. (I'm tagging.) --Dhartung | Talk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as corporate WP:SPAM under new CSD policy and stricter attitude towards corporate articles. Article created by single purpose user account which has also spammed links to this article across other articles. No claim of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in to Axure RP, per discussion between Uncle G and I. Kevin 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is too vague and content-free to be worth hanging on to, even if notability could be shown. The article seems unlikely to improve beyond what we have now. Drawing flow diagrams doesn't sound like a difficult task; what more do they do? EdJohnston 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above stated reasons. Brimba 20:58, 7 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, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpets[edit]

Article (and potentially website) fails to assert notability. See WP:WEB for information on notability requirements for the web. In it's current form I cannot see how the article is encyclopedic or notable and it should probably be deleted MidgleyDJ 02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. That its owners strive to raise awareness of animal care (endangered species, etc.) sounds potentially notable, but it needs to be verified with reliable sources, right?
Additional comments:
--Stratadrake 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in first twenty ghits that makes it really notable. MER-C 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above Atrian 00:49, 8 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. Punkmorten 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wierd (programming language)[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn befunge/brainfuck clone. —Ruud 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is quite unique and is not a clone of the above ---AM088 21:14, 5 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, W.marsh 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur, it is not a clone and is an interesting interpretation and implementation of a minimalist programming language. This could be applicable to embedded systems or programmable integrated circuits (PIC) which have extremely limited (relative) memory storage capacity --Neo 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Esoteric to the point of uselessness, and ultimately non-notable. It's not useful for PIC programming, as there is no hardware that implements it. The instruction encoding scheme is unusual, but that's about it - the instruction set is functionally equivalent to that seen in Brainfuck-family languages. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It'd pain me to see this one go, a little bit, because I found the article quite interesting... but remember that being interesting doesn't mean it's notable. Duke it out! Dekimasu 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's interesting (and proof that the people who write programming languages really are just trying to confuse me) but I don't see anything that even claims notability. It exists, yeah, but is anyone using it? Has anyone written about it? It doesn't appear so. Recury 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a really interesting language, but at Dekimasu said, interesting != notable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Curiosity != encyclopedia notable. Not to mention that employing visual appearance to help with SW development isn't the newest idea. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were a really well-written article it would be worth keeping. The language itself doesn't seem notable enough. EdJohnston 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons above. Gazpacho 23:53, 6 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 - since even the nomination subtly suggests a merge. Discussion whether to merge or maintain it as its own article can take place on talk page. Yomanganitalk 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem (The Wildhearts song)[edit]

Per WP:MUSIC/SONG does not deserve its own article -Nv8200p talk 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:MUSIC/SONG recommends merging short song articles into other articles rather than deleting them. In this case the most appropriate merge location would be Endless Nameless, the article on the album on which the song is included. Extraordinary Machine 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Spineback I have expanded this article to include details of the single release and have added the Wildhearts template and an infobox.
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a released single. No need to merge this, to do so would screw up the discography chain. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 8 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. Punkmorten 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:40, 28 September 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, W.marsh 02:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke language, more or less; no complete interpreters appear to exist (the one on the author's page is incomplete!) and no references turned up on a search besides the author's site and Wikipedia. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof. Dekimasu 11:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Zetawoof. If it's never been implemented, it's certainly non-notable. JIP | Talk 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zetawoof --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that this is a language definition that is intended to be funny. People with a short attention span, like the readers of an encyclopedia, , are unlikely to make sense of it in the time available. If it's not notable, and it's not interesting, then I think we should vote to delete. EdJohnston 22:31, 6 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. Punkmorten 10:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whirl[edit]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:43, 28 September 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, W.marsh 02:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another joke programming language whose primary purpose is to annoy the programmer. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I fail to see how this language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh, please. Not notable, not even serious. EdJohnston 22:33, 6 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 a vanity/neologism/nonsense article. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cling (hand gesture)[edit]

Original research about a non-notable local-interest-only neologism DMacks 02:24, 6 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Switzer[edit]

Academic, only claim to nobability provided is that his classes are good at trivial pursuit. --Peta 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty weak claim to fame. Certainly doesn't seem to put him over WP:PROFTEST. (Is an "Adjunct Assistant Professor" what I think it is, a non-tenure-track temporary faculty member?) -- Fan-1967 03:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio (almost speediable). JDoorjam Talk 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Khukri (talk . contribs) 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does anybody read WP:BIO before creating articles? --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Triviaa 21:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article made a stronger claim to notability, it might be worth considering this carefully. EdJohnston 22:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Malpertuis 23:17, 6 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainscough[edit]

Delete, per WP:NOT. --Peta 02:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Hello32020 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but with significant reservations. The article should be deleted because there are no references whatsoever. But I'm rather curious what you think this article is that Wikipedia is "not." There's nothing prohibiting articles on family histories, provided their subject is notable, verifiable, and the articles have citations. I'm also concerned that Hello32020 seems to simply be machine-gun-voting "Delete per nom" down the page, in at least one instance voting twice in the same AfD. That Hello32020 voted to delete per the nominator here, when the nominator basically didn't say anything, is somewhat alarming. JDoorjam Talk 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't speak for Petaholmes, but given that the article discusses the branches of a particular family with the surname Ainscough, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database seems to be the most likely to me. That policy is aimed more at preventing "Joe Smith, born 1685, died 1714, son of [[Fred Smith]] and father of [[Jim Smithson]]. Married [[Mary Baker]] in 1711." articles, though. Uncle G 10:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A very short article like this one, even if it sounded like genealogy, might be worth keeping if we could believe it was true. I see no verifiability here, and no attempt whatever at documentation of the claims made. EdJohnston 22:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Mrbowtie 13:14, 10 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 11:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QDB.us[edit]

Domain name, in addition to other problems discussed on the talk page the article provides no evidence of notability. --Peta 02:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, nor does it appear to be a quotes database. Don't believe this is against a Wiki policy, but it also contains racist material (e.g., Offensive Material) QuiteUnusual 08:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks like a quotes database to me...or at least I browsed a bunch of random quotes on it, and saw GUI options to add new quotes. What more would it take to be a quotes database website? DMacks 23:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm (reasons discussed on talk page
  1. Notability - WP:NOTABILITY
  2. References - WP:CITE & WP:WEB
  3. Original Research - WP:OR

/Blaxthos 08:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whatever this website is, it doesn't appear to be notable. JIP | Talk 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable website. Jcam 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Alexa Ranking = 88,346. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although not notable, this is the kind of article that might be worth keeping if it were interesting, but it's not. EdJohnston 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as it stands, per EdJohnson. I could provide references for the factual statements regarding the history of the site, but not so sure about finding anything about notability. I agree that it deserves mention somewhere...and there's already a sentence about it in bash.org, so maybe that text could be expanded a bit to explain the geneology of qdb.us, bash.org, and IRCQuotes (also AfD'ed) and moved to Quote Database page (see also the QDB dab page)...one main page about quote databases, and a detailed one about bash.org in particular. Then redirect QDB.us. DMacks 23:35, 10 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 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Industry[edit]

Fails WP:RS, WP:V. No reliable sources found through Google.--M8v2 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to assert notability. Fancruft.--Húsönd 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my stance to Neutral, per Hahnchen.--Húsönd 15:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have two print sources for this from PC Zone, one of which describes it as a Half-Life classic. I removed the prod citing give me some time to add these sources, and will do in due course, but I've spent most of my Wikipedia time today on DRV. I've deprodded quite a few mods asking for some more time, I'd quite like a few more weeks to clean them up, after that, fire away. - Hahnchen 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YAHLM (Yet Another Half-Life Mod). Good luck to Hahnchen, but this isn't notable enough to merit cleanup. Opabinia regalis 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral then; no problem with trying to clean it up, though I'm not convinced a couple of reviews in PC Zone means notability. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The mod website hosts some press mentions. This includes 3 reviews of 3 different versions at PC Zone("Science wins again""A Half-Life Classic""Mod of the Month"). And a double page spread in some French magazine.[15][16]. This isn't just another Half-Life mod, and whereas its popularity now has waned, this was one of the most popular mods for Half-Life. It's not like I've just voted to keep every mod, far from it. - Hahnchen 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: no opinion on keeps/deletes, haven't checked what the consensus for notability and so on is, but I justwanted to confirm that Gen4 (the "some French magazine" ,-) ) is (or was at least at that time) one of the leading French computer game magazines and not some fanzine or so. I would consider this easily a reliable and reputable source for computer games and mods. Fram 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen's reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note the brief mention here in Compter Gaming World [17], "but he leads us to suspect something a little like multiplayer Half-Life mod Science and Industry." -- Dragonfiend 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen. --Terence Ong (T | C) 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being somewhat familiar with ol' MCL, I think this mod should stay. WVhybrid 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not just any YAHLM. Delta Tango | Talk 04:59, 7 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 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galbadia Hotel[edit]

Essentially an advertisement. WarpstarRider 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - it is an article about a website that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:16, 6 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 Userfied -- Fan-1967 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Harpool[edit]

Vanity -Nv8200p talk 03:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7.--Húsönd 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- Some people don't know what a user page is for. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or Userfy - No reason to bring this one to AFD Fan-1967 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have Userifed it and tagged the leftover redirect for deletion. If user tries to move it back to articlespace, we can address it then. Fan-1967 03:20, 6 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red & Anarchist Action Network[edit]

No evidence of notability within or outside the anarchist community. --Peta 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Jpe|ob 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sidebar about anarchism is interesting, though I understand it's not part of the article. If there are no references, and just a bunch of links to supporter websites, then we have no verifiability or documentation, so delete. EdJohnston 23:44, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TZN Xenna[edit]

Doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think they can make a case for: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." as a founding punk band in Poland during Communist rule. Playing punk rock at that time and place must have been a lot of work. Here's a page on them: [18]. 54,300 GHits. I'm not super dedicated to the article, but I'm leaning towards keep. - Richfife 05:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep as it seems like the topic is notable. The editors still need to back up their claims by showing that this group is as important as they imply. Dekimasu 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article is changed to make the case for their notability. The write-up of the band cited by the reviewer above [19] is much more interesting than the Wikipedia article, and more informative about the records they made. Can't the details of their records be brought into the article? EdJohnston 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, though the article needs to be backed up with verifiable sources. If it can't be, then delete.--Cúchullain t/c 22:02, 8 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant Expressive Signing Team[edit]

I'm not convinced that this group meets WP:MUSIC. --Peta 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Google renders 5 results, including Wikipedia's.--Húsönd 03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm crossing my fingers and hoping this AfD doesn't turn into the return of Young Crowd. - Richfife 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It pains me to want to delete something as cool as a Christian American Sign Language group, but I have to agree that they just aren't notable enough (and I looked hard to find anything that might make them notable). It's too bad that this will be deleted, but now that I'm aware of them I can keep up with the group on my own. - Lex 02:37, 7 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 11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blind Pig (fiction)[edit]

No evidence of notability or encyclopedic merit. --Peta 03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess it isn't technically fanfiction, but close enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom.UberCryxic 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Simon Speed 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, online collaborative projects are inherently non-notable. (Oh, wait...) Andrew Levine 01:22, 11 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 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Chronicals and Remember Tomorrow[edit]

A one issue college magazine, and a story that appeared in that magazine; unencyclopedic, delete.--Peta 03:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both They could have gone somewhere. But they didn't. - Richfife 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. MER-C 05:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Richfife got it exactly right. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:41, 6 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 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October Sun Films[edit]

Delete, There is no indication that this firm has produced any films that meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Brimba 04:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete This is kind of a weird one that brings up a question that's been bopping around in the back of my head for a while. This company and their film "Line in the sand" get a lot of attention in the White Pride / Racism world, but almost none in traditional media. Sooo... Is it notable by standard Wikipedia reliable source standards? No. Should it be included as a part of that world? Maybe. But probably not. - Richfife 05:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This AFD sounds very familiar too. The JPStalk to me 19:36, 7 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 - Yomanganitalk 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phasing (Magic mechanic)[edit]

The article is about a single mechanic within the game of Magic: The Gathering. While the game itself deserves a page, and the rules deserve a page (having been nominated and kept), individual mechanics do not. Khaim 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated as similar pages: Haste, Vigilance (Magic mechanic), Fear (Magic mechanic).

  • Delete as per nom Khaim 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Magic: The Gathering rules - Richfife 05:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. MER-C 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In a game that has thousands upon thousands of cards, we can't have a separate article for every single one. Not notable at all. --The Way 09:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply As the creator of these, I can say I was not trying to describe each and every card, just different mechanics, especially ones where there's a story to its name or, in the case of Phasing, there's a lot of confusion. -- Jbl1975 13 October 2006 01:04 EDT
    • Reply I agree with you, but Pokemon has set a pretty strong precedent here. - Richfife 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply If people have engaged in this with the Pokemon category then that doesn't necessarily count in favor of keeping this article; rather, it seems to imply that we should nominate most of those articles for deletion as well --The Way 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply They did. It didn't work. - Richfife 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per Richfife. - Lex 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:NOT a game guide, or failing that, merge all per above. Sandstein 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete neither notable nor encycopedic (i.e. game guide). Eluchil404 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All Phasing had much more on it then what is there now. I just preferred to explain how certain names of mechanics got their names. If you feel these things could be merged into one page, then please do so, but I like the descriptions I have (and had) for each one. -- Jbl1975 13 October 2006 01:01 EDT
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - Yomanganitalk 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Henley[edit]

Removed prod tag, sending here for discussion. Original reason for prod: Political candidate and middle-school History/Debate teacher. Unelected, and article padded with school debate team accomplishments. Naconkantari 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Currently, the only source for this article is the campaign's website bio. To me, this counts as self-published information and advocacy, and as such isn't a reliable source for background information. Anyone wishing to see the article kept should probably extend the article to incorporate other sources. Demi T/C 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's a Democrat running for congress in Houston, so I've got to give him credit for shear bloody mindedness. But, he hasn't been elected yet, so no. - Richfife 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you meant sheer bloody mindedness, or did you have The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in mind? --Calton | Talk 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... Yeah. What you said. - Richfife 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Which would be me, since I'm the one who added the "Prod" tag. --Calton | Talk 06:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if he gets elected, then maybe he will be notable enough for an article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I removed the worst POV problems from the article and added a few links that could be used as reliable sources for the article text. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Henley in a brief search of the Houson Chronicle website. The article has the potential for expansion. Minus the POV, the article is verifiable and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no problem with this page after Jerysko's edits. Some Person 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Non-notable. If he gets elected, he'll be notable, but not right now. --TonySt 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think that for now, he might be eligable for a Wikipedia article, but if he isn't elected, then the page should be deleted. 207.218.205.234 03:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, y not? Mr. Sam 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Wikipedia operates on a "Guilty until proven innocent" policy. Articles have to justify their presence. - Richfife 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Probably, it would be impossible to cover a U.S. Congress race, like this one, without biographical articles on the participants. I think the question here is, should a House seat race be covered, merely because it's a House seat race? If so, it pretty much demands biographical information on the candidates. Demi T/C 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he is notable for now, but if he isn't elected, then the article should be deleted. -216.40.239.21 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Democratic Baptist pastor and public school teacher in Texas rare enough to be notable. Coach of national championship multiwinning team enough to be notable. Running for Congress too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as per Jersyko and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above. -- Sholom 15:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- regardless of whether or not he wins or loses, Jim Henley has mounted a true challenge to the incumbent, and his loss would not be the end of his involvement in politics. At the very least, the page should be kept up until the election in order to provide voters with information. Including information on John Culberson (R-TX), but not providing at least a link to Henley's homepage would represent a bias. Mysticfeline 22:29, 12 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 - Sam Clark's comments make a good summary - Yomanganitalk 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neural therapy[edit]

Despite the appearance of references, this is non-notable pseudoscience and spam. Obvious googling "neural therapy" will get you something, but "neural therapy" +procaine gets about 1000 results, +novocain another 80, most to the expected sorts of websites advertising their healing wares. Apparently someone did manage to get this published in a real journal - once, in 1956. The reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure your claim that is pseudo-science has any support. It is an alternative form of therapy that it is being practiced, tought and researched. So why dont we delete it in the german wikipedia? [20] Knowing chemistry means little in understanding medicine or biology. Why not place the article for revision since you know as little as I? And since you are such a spiteful person you add that "the reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia" when I knew perfectly that I meant ganglion.: Jcbohorquez (talk • contribs)

As I described, there's a distinct lack of published research on the subject, and a lack of sources indicating that it is a common alternative treatment despite this. One paper from 1956 does not make an article, regardless of what the German Wikipedia does or doesn't do. I was referring to the pluralization of "ganglion" as "ganglions", which suggested a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but as this is a reasonable error for a non-native English speaker I have stricken it. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually since there are several ganglion it is adecuate to say ganglions. Since you know the rules of wikipedia you can easily get this article deleted. I find this technic insulting and demeaning of what this site stands for. You should promote discussion not censorship. That is why I found your comments so viceral and was compelled to respond.

Language is a fre e moving social construction of meaning. Its purpose is to explain what we understand to others and to ourselves. I just found of encyclopedic value to know of alternative types of therapy. I did my best to improve the article. Theres a recent publication where patients prefer neural therapy over accupunture in accute pain. Since pain is a subjective experience the finding is of value to the medical community (patients and caretakers). I also found the article Ferdinand Heuneken published in 1961, listed in Science Direct. JCBohorquez Jcbohorquez 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Referenced description by the American Cancer Society (linked from the article), plus a fairly large number of google hits[21] suggest that this is a notable alternative therapy. Almost certainly pseudoscientific nonsense, too, but that's not what's at stake here. If it is kept, the article needs to address the point that 'There is no scientific evidence that neural therapy is effective in treating cancer or any other disease.'[22] and to be copyedited. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments were valuable and were added. I´m ignorant on what you call "copyedited". Jcbohorquez 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Jcbohorquez[reply]
  • Delete I would not trust anyone with injecting anything into my ganglions (sic), unless they had peer-reviewed journal articles documenting double-blind clinical trials to back them up. The fact that this AfD is being disputed on grounds like "language being a free moving social construct" is also worrying. Policy-wise, this would appear to fail WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:FT and most certainly WP:BOLLOCKS. It would be irresponsible to provide a platform for this nonsense. Byrgenwulf 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not for a moment suggesting that this therapy is a good idea, but the evidence does seem to be that's it's fairly widely used, and therefore notable. That's why I argue 'keep'. Part of the improvement the article needs is certainly putting it into neutral, 'some people (referenced) believe that...' style. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf. Even assuming this topic passes the notability test, the improvement it needs just won't happen. Not in this world. (sighs) Anville 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Homeopathic medicine cannot stand doble-bind clinical trials due to the nature of the propused therapy. Yet it is a common practice of alternative medicine and has an article in wikipedia. We should not debate if its scietifically valid, we should debate if its "knowledge" that should be included somehow into the wikipedia. Jcbohorquez 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Published scientific studies have been quoted in the Homeopathy article, actually. In addition, there have been double-blind clinical trials on Homeopathy, see the article. They strongly suggest a placebo effect, but the trials have been done. Anyways, the current article is not WP:NPOV. ColourBurst 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tried to improve on comment by removing biased comparisson to accupunture. Jcbohorquez 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Niether of the following are good reasons to delete: 1. the article isn't NPOV or well-written; 2. the therapy it describes is pseudoscientific rubbish. 1 is a reason to improve the article. 2 is irrelevant: plenty of articles in WP are about rubbish without promoting rubbish. What's at stake is whether the subject of the article is notable - the evidence seems to be that it is - and whether an adequate article could be written about it - which doesn't seem impossible, given the improvement (e.g. in referencing) so far. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not about the efficacy of neural therapy. It is about the notability of the practice. There are over a hundred pubmed articles about the practice as well as lots of google hits. It deserves a well-researched article of its own (I've made some small changes). InvictaHOG 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to me, from the discussion here, that it's notable, and I don't see merit in the other arguments. Gabrielthursday 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there is an organized group of people doing this thing, it deserves an article. The Scientific status is irrelevant, we also have an article about Christian Science.Randroide 12:20, 12 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 hoax. JDoorjam Talk 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blooming iris[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}}.

Uhh. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uhh, "ancient Valensteinian cultures"? What nonsense. Delete Fan-1967 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of the ancient Valensteinian culture. I think it was an little known sect of people from Jerusalem. KEEP IT— Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybuff11 (talk • contribs) (Note: New user with no previous edits)

Oh, I have been looking for this article for some time. Read about it in a kama sutra book I bought on Amazon. Great— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImJustCurious (talk • contribs) (Note: New user with no previous edits)

  • Delete as nonsense. Erechtheus 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You don't have verifiability, so we don't even know of Valensteinian culture exists. And why would they be connected to the kama sutra? ColourBurst 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete as hoax. " "Blooming Iris" "Kama Sutra" " gets 110 hits, the majority of which are from FTD.com and have nothing to do with the purported subject. When removing references to FTD, seven hits remain, all of which are just copies of the FTD content. And the sockpuppetry above, to quote User:JzG, "hardens my heart." JDoorjam Talk 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax, but SNOW is not policy. Dekimasu 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 12:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge/Redirect to Fisting --Roninbk t c e # 12:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not unless you can find a source that says this term is ever used for it. Fan-1967 12:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a dominatrix and my female customers have requested a blooming iris on occasion. I didn't know of the word origin, but I think this should STAYSexymama789 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: New user with no previous edits)[reply]

  • Comment When this AFD is closed, can closing admin please ban Bloomingiris (talk · contribs) and all his/her fake accounts. This is totally unacceptable. Fan-1967 13:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone. Recury 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no good sources when I look. And isn't it the job of the authors of the article to provide such sources? --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero google hits for "Valensteinian", and the sock puppets aren't even really bothering to hide themselves. -Markeer 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "himself" actually. Since all the socks make the same formatting mistakes, looks like it's just one. Fan-1967 17:10, 6 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 spam by Premeditated Chaos. MER-C 08:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang (instrument)[edit]

Advertisement. And the links to it. Anthony Appleyard 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam. Note that the creator is Gidda (talk · contribs), who is mentioned in the article. So tagged. MER-C 06:15, 6 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 article presently has no reliable sources; keep commenters offer mostly weak arguments of the "Wikipedia has an article on X, and X is awful, so we should keep this too" variety. Consensus for deletion is stronger on arguments and in number. Xoloz 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BackAndLay[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD A7. So tagged. If this one gets deleted, I'll tag the 3 articles nominated below too. MER-C 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't add this inappropriate tag again. It was removed once, and I'll remove it again. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, relatively small but nevertheless influential betting exchange in the UK which is in opposition to Betdaq and Betfair. This exchange is steadily acquiring liquidity and it is entirely possible that once reasonable liquidity levels are achieved that the 1% commisssion basis may result in it becoming the major UK exchange. Whilst small, it is still a sizeable presence in some key UK betting markets, and the occasional very serious trade is exercised intra players on there. The article does however need some work and should demonstrate notability to a greater extent than it does. I will give this some attention if the article survives what appears to be an unnecessary and spurious attempt to delete. Sjc 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do so before the discussion period ends, if you can. We can't judge the article on the merits of what you might write next week. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no intention of working on an article which is arbitrarily slated for deletion. If it is removed from the deletion list I may consider expending some of my time and my effort on it. But otherwise not. Sjc 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No reasoning for deletion given. Article needs work to discuss business status but should have gotten a stub tag. 2005 11:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason that the nominator gives is that the article doesn't demonstrate how the subject satisfies our WP:CORP criteria for companies, products, and services. Uncle G 12:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it doesn't. Would it have killed the nominator to state what you just said? The nominator made several apparently random nominations at the same time, with no stated reason for any of them. This article obviously states its reasons for notability, but apparently the article was not even read. The company may well not meet WP:CORP, but that was not the nomination so lets not pretend it is. 2005 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources given to verifiably show the notability of this website. Kusma (討論) 11:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources given. I was unable to find anything that would make me think otherwise in the first 20 results on Google. Company website has an Alexa ranking of 946,504.
  • Delete per nom. Inadequate article, subject not notable. EdJohnston 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If BackAndLay's entry is deleted then, by the same criteria, all other betting exchanges should be deleted too. The existing sections on betting exchanges - products faciliated by the internet - seems proportionate and balanced. Betfair rightly gets the most coverage, but the minor competitors like this one have their brief place too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.85.183 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-07 00:18:11
  • Oppose, Its main claim to fame is that its owner has a certain notoriety within the UK betting industry and certainly online among online punters. He is a frequent correspondent with the Racing Post on betting industry-related matters and he has attained a profile out of proportion to the traffic his betting exchange appears to drive. I maintain the entry is worth preserving as stub, as the website might acquire more significance over time. Right now, its main claim to fame is that it is possibly the only totally unfunded betting exchange start-up on the web.
  • Delete No sign of meeting WP:Corp. Not a notable betting exchange (yet). Catchpole 20:26, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 23:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BetBug[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move. Betbug is a subsiduary of Trident Gaming PLC. Trident is unlisted but seems to be notable enough to warrant an entry (e.g., statement that 8% stake held by Waltech Services Pic is worth 4M GBP - link to Waltech Chairman's Statement) QuiteUnusual 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:CORP for our notability criteria for companies, products, and services. They don't involve measuring the values of shareholdings, in part because such values change from day to day and provide no stable criterion. See WP:SOFTWARE for similar criteria for computer software. Uncle G 14:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant was - if the stake is worth 4M GBP, then the total company is worth 50M GBP. That is, it is a relatively large private company. I make no claims for it being notable beyond that as no information is readily available in the public domain. QuiteUnusual 15:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. Catchpole 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services, WP:SOFTWARE, et alia. As such, no reputable, third-party sources are available as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 04:14, 14 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 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBetX[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:04, 6 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 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TradeSports[edit]

No real assertion of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:WEB following a Lexis-Nexis search. Examples of sources to come...Sources whose primary subject is Tradesports added to references section. Pan Dan 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of sourcing by User:Pan Dan. — TKD::Talk 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 2005 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Pan Dan. Englishrose 13:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Wikipedia: Notability (companies and corporations) states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: ... The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." References section as edited by Pan Dan indicates some of those sources. Recommend that Nlu withdraw the nomination, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Thesmothete 04:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments above and recent sourcing. RFerreira 01:34, 11 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 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xchangebet[edit]

Insufficient assertions of notability. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - 364 Ghits (and nothing in the news) for a fairly unique moniker suggests a distinct lack of notability. --DeLarge 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of meeting WP:CORP. Catchpole 20:31, 11 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. JIP | Talk 12:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald F. Bernard[edit]

Non-Notable, Vanity, SPAM Francisx 06:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) This article violates [WP:Notability] policy and appears to be a vanity publishing created in order to market this person's lectures.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Media[edit]

No reliable sources, Google test (which is fairly reliable for internet subjects) revealed only 17 unique hits, and still no reliable sources for verification; no indication that it has attracted enough attention to be able to write about it in an encyclopedic fashion, using a neutral point of view. Captainktainer * Talk 06:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope others will add to the article so that it becomes notable. Short-Media is small in comparison to sites like AnandTech and [H]ard|OCP, but I don't think that alone should preclude it from having an entry in Wikipedia. Racantrell 07:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I remember this, or more specifically I remember Icrontic being hacked and Short-media replacing it. I don't think that counts as notability though, and nor does an Alexa traffic rank of 33,000.[23] Both Anandtech and [H]ardOCP are much higher, while their participation in F@H is irrelevant. Allowing this would, I fear, set the notability bar too low for techie websites. --DeLarge 10:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability asserted. Fails WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a website directory Bwithh 16:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The evidence given above persuades me that this company lacks notability, by web standards. Web data plus media coverage is all we have to go on for web-type companies. EdJohnston 20:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not tobe Deleted it is someone else property, only the admin have the right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.8.12 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 October 2006.
    • Actually, you're completely wrong. The people who contributed to the article released their contributions under the GFDL, which means that while they still hold copyright, we can do pretty much whatever we like with their contributions as long as we credit them and preserve the article history. While only admins have the power to delete the entire article, we, the Wikipedia community, are expected to comment on Articles for Deletion and say whether or not (and why) we think an article should be deleted. Captainktainer * Talk 18:31, 9 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 Eagle 101. MER-C 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattel HyperScan[edit]

Article written entirely based on one press release. --InShaneee 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 07:37, 6 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action civique de Québec[edit]

Only two lines of content that looks like a poor translation from english, and the info boxes are not even done properly JenLouise 07:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete The site isn't just a poor translation, it's absolute nonsense. Plus, none of the links work and the table on the right isn't programmed correctly. --The Way 09:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - I thought this might be salvageable as a stub if the info could be translated (poor English and bad formatting are not deletion criteria), but the domain name registration expired last month. The only English language Ghits I'm getting are to WP/mirrors, and without external verifiability it has to go. Maybe someone could use the non-English links to create a Fr:WP article, but not here.
  • Salvage job seems to have sorted this. Still not many Ghits (1610 is not "plenty" in my book, and no Google News hits even in Canada and French language-specific sites), but seems to meet notability requirements regardless. --DeLarge 10:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it was an incredibly poor article, but I have cleaned it up, and now it is a perfectly good stub. The official site works fine for me, and Quebec City's own website indicates that the party is the second largest party on the City Council, with 6 of the 37 seats ([24]). It is notable and verifiable.

    A Google search turns up plenty of hits. I note that WP:V does not preclude the use of non-English sources; it simply prefers the use of English-language versions where available for the convenience of English-speaking readers (and Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability"). I strongly disagree with the notion that the lack of English-language sources (not surprising for a local political party in an overwhelmingly non-English speaking city) somehow renders the subject non-notable and non-verifiable, but that it would be okay for there to be an article on the French-language wikipedia. Skeezix1000 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as stub given Skeezix1000's excellent salvage job. They have contested elections and so are notable. Keresaspa 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable political party in a major Canadian city. Kirjtc2 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wonderful salvage job. Notable due to actually being elected. I would love to see this article expanded as I am sure there is more information about this party available. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the information that they hold 6 of the 37 council seats, and a pointer to their seldom-updated web site, I'm not sure that this tells us anything about the Action Civique de Québec. I'd support deletion of the article now, and recreation if anyone has time to do a proper article. The other parties on the City Council don't have articles yet, and I sure wouldn't recommend they get ones like this. As an office-holding political party I agree that the A.C.Q. are notable. It's just that the stub is so small it makes you feel you wasted your time looking it up and reading it. As a temporary measure, could a section be added to the Quebec City Council page that just has the URLs of the party web sites? EdJohnston 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive shows that they have received plenty of coverage in the Canadian French media and shows potential for expansion. [25] As the party has successfully endorsed candidates for election, it is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real party with real office-holders, what more do you want? Sandstein 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've seen plenty of articles on other language Wiki's that are only stubs of lengthy English language articles. Turnaround's fair play, n'est ce pas? Atrian 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep valid stub per Skeezix and Atrian. Ground Zero | t 04:55, 11 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 without prejudice against recreation/userfication. Looking past the bold-lettered quasi-votes, there is actually a unanimous consensus here that this article is presently close to unreadable: I concur in that judgment. Subject may be notable, but this article is not encyclopedic in the extreme. I will happily userfy for anyone interested in clean-up, but it is otherwise better to start fresh. Xoloz 02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ekhwa[edit]

The article makes absolutely no sense whatsoever JenLouise 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as band appears to be notable but article totally unreadable. If not deleted needs cleaning for circular references, copy edit. QuiteUnusual 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick bit of Googling imlies that they're notable in their market. But holy crapola, does it need a cleanup tag attached... --DeLarge 10:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no bias against recreation. The article as it stands is so far gone that it can't be copyedited into English, and will never be fixed. This is the kind of article that hurts the reputation of Wikipedia. Dekimasu 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After a cleanup, this article will be fine. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 19:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough evidence of notability. Intro is word salad.Edison 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without objection to recreation, the article needs a complete overhaul to be usable. I think it's better to start it anew, as I don't know if anything can be salvaged. Titoxd(?!?) 20:11, 13 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 Roberta Kalechofsky. El_C 08:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Animal Rights[edit]

It is cabal-cruft. This is pure Wikipedia:Fancruft. There is allegedly a cabal on Wikipedia that is pro Jewish, pro animal rights and this is just a Fancrufty article based off such fan interests. Thus, it makes it cabal-cruft. The article also is purely non-notable. The book sources don't reference the organization and some even were published before it began -- they are also non-notable sources, too, and most look self-published, which fails wikipedia's notability guidelines. The website references failed WP:V and WP:N and WP:WEB (including failing google and alexa), making the article failing WP:V and WP:N. The organization also fails WP:ORG. DyslexicEditor 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Hmmm ... if the page was created by a pro-Jewish, pro-animal rights cabal, I'm it, and I'm clearly somewhat off-message, because I think the page should be merged with Roberta Kalechofsky, its founder. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Seconded merge proposal. What he said. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Given that the entire table of contents consists of "See also", "Notes", "References" and "Further reading", We're hardly going to overwhelm the Roberta Kalechofsky page by merging/redirecting. --DeLarge 10:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is only a cabal if you want there to be one --Roninbk t c e # 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge article, and avoid "cabal" allegations in future nominations. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wait for sources on notability. This is not a garage band or other obviously non-notable organization and should be given time to provide independent evidence of notability. If no evidence is forthcoming, Merge per above. Agree that nominations should stick to policy criteria like non-notability and personal objections to an organization's POV etc. are not legitimate grounds for a deletion nomination and should not appear in them. --Shirahadasha 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cabal orders. Oh wait, SV is the head of the cabal and says to merge. This cabal really needs to work on its communication abilities. Ok, joking aside merge but maybe give some time to see if anyone can locate other sources? JoshuaZ 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a meeting set up with myself tonight to discuss how better to communicate with myself in future. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 12 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 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom time hypothesis[edit]

As his claim is so radically opposed to the sciences of archaeology, dating, etc., it is incumbent upon Heribert to prove that his claims are more than disatisfaction with current dating methods and supposed radical innacuracies of medieval scribes. This is Heribert's only claim to fame, his only reason for inclusion in the Wikipedia. As such, is it enough to actually justify any page on him? I think not and have thus nominated this thoroughly implausible theory for deletion. Banaticus 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep. the theory is bunk, of course, but bunk of sufficient notability. See the German version. dab (ᛏ) 08:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep, notable theory. we don't delete articles on theories based on their plausibility. bogdan 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Heribert Illig and re-direct (or disambig). Str1977 (smile back) 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bunk, but quite notable bunk. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 10:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Heribert Illig. There is already significant duplication between the two articles. -- Stbalbach 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and put in pseudoscience category. It's notable enough to be mentioned. LHOON 12:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already in Pseudoarchaeology and Pseudohistory categories, which are subcategories of Pseudoscience category. bogdan 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The German version might be notable. But the books haven't been translated into English and the theories are completely ridiculous. If this were the German Wikipedia, then it might be notable enough to keep. But 1) the theory is just plain stupid and 2) is not notable in English -- it thus should not be on the English Wikipedia. If the German Wikipedia editors feel that it's notable enough to host over there, more power to them. Additionally, relevant information from this article has already been merged with that on Heribert. This particular article should be deleted. Banaticus 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the sources are in German doesn't make it not notable or not verifiable. "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." (from WP:V) --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herbert Illig published the books himself (according to the German Wikipedia Heribert Illig discussion page). Maelnuneb, the same page that you quoted begins with the statment, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." (Their emphasis, not mine.) The source of these crank allegations is not a reputable publisher. Banaticus 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should follow the link I gave to the German Wikipedia and inform them of that, Angus McLellan. By the way, the link you gave appears to essentially be a syllabus -- I didn't see anything on that page which contradicts the German Wikipedia's assertion that Heribert published this himself. Banaticus 23:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the editorial board of EWE (as it is now called) doesn't include Illig: Loh, for example, is a Professor of Sociology at Paderborn, Keil-Slawik of Computing & Society. The journal has been published for 14+ years. One issue had some material on Illig, largely rebuttals of his work. And yes, the link is to a table of contents. The printed journals are issued by the academic publishers Lucius & Lucius. Everything seems quite above board. Illig has been published in a reliable source, but his ravings were rejected and probably, going by the table of contents, on the grounds that the WP article gives: the need for massive and highly improbable cross-cultural collusion (Gunnar Heinsohn: Armenier und Juden als Testfall für die Streichung von drei Jahrhunderten durch Heribert Illig) and on astronomical grounds (Wolfhard Schlosser: Astronomie und Chronologie). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense. Or merge with Omphalos theory which says the world could have been created 2 minutes ago.Edison 20:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. There is significant overlap. Just because a theory is garbage does not automatically mean it is not encyclopedic. The vast majority of theologians say The Jesus Seminar are a bunch of jerks, and there are still some Flat Earthers around. RickReinckens 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples have achieved public recognition and notability in English, which this article hasn't. Banaticus 23:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable information for everyone who looks at the world with questions. The subject concerned, the middle or 'dark' ages, is indeed a very questionable period. Also a reminder that history has more to do with politics then math. Every history scholar can tell you there is no singular correct version of history, it comes from different sources. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustinBeck.
  • Keep, from the point of view of History of Architecture this could well be true. -- Petri Krohn 07:36, 10 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 seems to be a duplicate of List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants, no reason presented why that's inadaquate. Content from that article can be split though if there's a consensus. W.marsh 00:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants[edit]

Along with the daughter articles, this duplicates information already at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Something needs to go, here, and I think it should be the set that is strangely organized and strangely named. Further nominations on the daughter articles to follow. --Dekimasu 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The further nominations are for the following:

Note that because the lists include capitals even when the capitals have less than 100,000 people, the Oceania list is not so much of a list of cities as a list of capitals. Having the articles separate also has led to them being in different states of disrepair (the Europe article lists the populations of some consitutent cities, but others don't). Dekimasu 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that deleting the single list would derail coordinated work at Wikipedia:Missing articles for towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Dekimasu 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a category On the other hand, this has a virtue of being completable; however, a category would be a lot easier to maintain and the only value of a list would be to sort it by country, something that would be easily done by having country categories. Or merge it into the whole list. However, 100000 people seems like a low threshold to me, but that's a subjective thing. ColourBurst 15:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft w/o clear purpose. What kind of magic is in the 100k number? Please do not create category. Categories should be used only for major defining characteristics, not as a poor man database tool. Pavel Vozenilek 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Powers of ten (and other round numbers) to denote milestone achievements are not really magic, but they are useful; we have plenty of them around here. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a quick perusal here found 3000 hit club, while there's no magic about 3000 hits rather than 3127, people tend to think in round numbers; Category:Centenarians nothing really magic about 100 years rather than 99 or 101, is there? And, of course, nearly every list in Category:Top_lists is some round number from the Fortune 500 & Fortune 1000 (not that Fortune thought too hard about the Fortune 488 or the Fortune 1109) to The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, not the 101 or the 99 greatest, etc.... Carlossuarez46 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously another weakness of Wikipedia. A more serious argument against the list (or cat): in the Czech Republic cities with > 100k people get larger percentage of money from state budget than the smaller cities. As a result those just a little bellow the threshold cheat in many ways at the time of making the decision. The "official" numbers easily jump up by hundredths to thousands overnight. There are five cities (Olomouc, Hradec Kralove, Pardubice, Usti nad Labem, Liberec) that oscilate around 100k every year. At least the lists should acknowledge inherent fuzziness of their classification. Pavel Vozenilek 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That weakness of WP is self-imposed: verifiability from a reliable source is sufficient for inclusion; not truth. So these lists are no more nor less accurate than any article that purports to give a population figure (which changes daily in any large area anyhow). To contrast the Czech example: in the US, and may other places probably, there are serious under-counts by census because some people don't respond, some people shouldn't be in the country at all, some people are wanted for crimes, some people have no fixed abode (homeless), and (not surprisingly) some people don't trust the government with their information. But, nearly every entry on a populated US geographic entity here uses the census population figures. Carlossuarez46 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - get rid of the capital cities anomaly by all means but I see no reason to dismiss this as list-cruft. Why do you say these pages are "strangely organised"? There are too many cities to include in one world-wide page so the continent pages are necessary. Most wotld lists split off by continent when they get too long - why not here? If you really want to delete something on the grounds of duplication it should be the other list (the "towns and cities" one, I mean). Jameswilson 23:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean out the entries (capital cities) that don't belong. The list meets the list criteria: it's verifiable and clear what should go in and should not (needs that clean up though). Carlossuarez46 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Once again, this list already exists at List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Whether it is too long or not is debatable, but the page with all cities over 100,000 together is at 59KB. This is definitely a workable page length in the case of a list. It makes more sense to me to have one page instead of seven, and I'm irked by the page that is nothing more than a list of lists. Separating the lists has already caused the editing of them to diverge, and this makes the lists less reliable. Looking through the pages, I trust the List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants more than the others. At any rate, the main point was that there is duplication going on and something needs to go. Dekimasu 01:23, 7 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 already deleted. Titoxd(?!?) 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Heart[edit]

this page was created by Mary Jessup, I know her personally and she's a self proclaimed wikivandal that gets a kick out of posting nonsense. She's not a musican and does not have any albums. Evaunit511 10:06, 6 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 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCoy[edit]

Non-notable election candidate. Contested prod. MER-C 10:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:BIO for politicians. 26 ghits. Mitaphane talk 11:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he wins, he gets an article, but until then the only media attention he has seems to be by the Libertarian party themselves, so he fails WP:BIO --Mnemeson 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. If such sources existed, the fact that this article reads like an advertisement would not be ground for deletion, but rather for appropriate tags or rewriting to conform to said sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.UberCryxic 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if he wins the election, he might be notable enough for an article, but until then, adios. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. RickReinckens 23:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and Google. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails On October 19th, 2006 a Debate will take place in Belleville, IL. All major third-party candidates have been invited and given the initial indication that they will attend. Clearly Mark McCoy is a notable politician in Illinois. The incumbents would love this entry deleted because they see Mark McCoyas a viable threat to win. Although Mark's campaign is only 10 days old - there is already significant interest throughout the state, an official endorsement by the Libertarian Party of Illinois, and debates are currently being planned with other all major third party candidates. Mark McCoy was recently a featured speaker at the state convention in Springfield, Illinois Please do not censor Mark McCoy because he has yet to win office. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shellin (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. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterfield Settlement[edit]

Apart from existing, this recreational centre has done nothing else of note. Doesn't warrant an article about it. —Xezbeth 11:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 11:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and it doesn't even exist any more. All the information in the article is covered in a sentence or so in the Violet Markham article, where it belongs. Google turns up nothing important about it. Might be worth a line in some local history article somewhere.Noroton 18:56, 6 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. MER-C 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gales[edit]

Looks like a {{db-bio}}, but I'll check it here. Googling "Pledge "Jeremy Gales"" gives 1 unrelated hit. feydey 11:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC) What needs to be changed? for it to stay?[reply]

I speedy deleted the article. Fails WP:MUSIC pretty miserably. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:37, 6 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. AnnH ♫ 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Karla Pope[edit]

I am not sure this meets WP:BIO. Although the incident meets WP:V, it may not be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, so rather than WP:PRODing it, it has gone to AFD. NC Moors 11:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted this page as nonsense created by a vandal. See the remaining contributions from that editor (whom I have blocked). AnnH ♫ 12:41, 6 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 Lectonar. MER-C 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limmy[edit]

Non-notable website with just about 11900 Ghits Jusjih 11:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Article does not establish notability. If he is notable, a complete rewrite would be necessary anyway. Even if cleaned up, I doubt it would pass WP:WEB, as limmy.com has an Alexa rank of 285,660 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 6 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 When keep commenters point to an online sockpuppeting incident as a reason for notability, they damage their own cause, and cast some doubt on their own motives. Anons/SPAs discounted. Xoloz 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph "Corky" Coker[edit]

Vanity page added by an apparent associate of Mr. Coker (User:CokerTire) --Flex 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Corky Coker" Qmax 21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page, Corky Coker is an icon in the restoration community. If it was not for Mr. Coker it would be very difficult to get period correct bias ply whitewall tires. --68.214.216.253 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete Natalieduerinckx 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is sufficiently notable. He is a former chairman of the board of SEMA, and he is the president of President of a prominent company in the automotive aftermarket industry. Info-freedom. Also, he is somewhat famous for an online sockpuppeting incident, described here: http://www.hotrodders.com/corky-coker.html 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Does a reliable source start with, "We think that Corky Coker, of Coker Tire, is a jerk. Actually, we think a lot worse of him, but all we're going to say is 'jerk'"? I also question whether that "famous" incident is at all notable in the context of the Wikipedia. (NB, I have no connection with Mr. Coker, with the forums mentioned, or with hot-rodding of any sort. I stumbled upon this page and nominated it for deletion for the reasons given above.) --Flex 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In considering the action, the word "Jerk" seems intentionally restrained. Many "reliable" sources have made much worse claims about individuals. Reliability is established when the allegations match the facts. If you doubt the reliability of the information, you can call up Coker Tire on the phone. Also, you can call up Discovery Channel or SEMA. Regarding notability, I had made a strong case for it in the article's discussion page. In addition to the notablility of the described episode, the fact that Coker Tire is involved in an extremely blatant vanity article attempt on Wikipedia lends notability to the previous incident. Anyway, Qmax deleted my discussion comments, although an administrator was kind enough to restore them to the discussion page, where you can now view them. This is the second time that my comments had been deleted from the discussion page in an attempt to cover-up the information. BTW, Qmax's request to "rename" is being done for search engine optimization purposes. He wants the page to rank well for the phrase "Corky Coker". This is why he wants it to be titled exactly as such, rather than with the more appropriate title which lists first and last name, as well as nickname. For example, see this entry in Qmax's blog: http://chattablogs.com/quintus/archives/040292.html .--Info-freedom 15:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll let the community decide about the reliability of that source and the notability of Mr. Coker, but while I agree that your comments should not have been deleted from the talk page, I don't think this article can stand on its own merits apart from any alleged "cover-up." --Flex 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Info-freedom suggested I explicitly cite WP:VAIN#What_is_encyclopedic? in regard to the "famous" discussion board incident. As far as I can tell, Coker was allegedly involved in spamming to a discussion board and following it up with some sock puppetry. Those are not crimes and are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia as I read the guidelines. --Flex 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed w/Flex, "not encyclopedic" is a reasonable argument for deletion. Although, it's interpretive. Regarding the nature of the incident as not a crime, Coker's sock puppetry incident may constitute the crime of a threat, or the crime of wire fraud. In the referenced post note how Coker puts the administrator's first and last name, and his town and state of residence, as the title of his post. In addition, he falsifies his location. Rather than entering his home state, he enters CO, the administrator's home state. In his post, he says: "watch what you say and who you say it to. You never know when it may really come back to bite you." This veiled threat, coupled with falsifying his location such that it is the same as the forum administrator's, may constitute a crime. In addition, I contend that the resultant wave in the industry from this episode is notable, rather than the encapsulated episode itself.--Info-freedom 19:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The discussion about the Coker's sock puppetry should probably go back to Talk:Joseph "Corky" Coker, but I will say here that unless he was convicted or officially charged with a crime, you may not raise that allegation here. That is original research and perhaps libel. --Flex 20:21, 12 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40 Oz[edit]

None notable song. Poorly written. A better written and formated version of this article was deleted before--M8v2 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it was a single and had a video and is by someone notable. Recury 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poorly written but existing one. Has a video. Was a B-side of "My band" and the latter charted well. Lajbi Holla @ me 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can show me where this got wide release as a single in a major market. Being a b-side is not notable at all. GassyGuy 08:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The number of tiny stubs with deletion potential on Wikipedia might double if it had an article on every song ever released as a single by a notable group/singer, and there's not much about this song to write about. "40 Oz" didn't achieve much chart success, no major awards, whatever. Unless somewhere cares that the song is about fighting and the video takes place at a club, it's better to just not bother with it at all. 2Pac 21:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a b-side. Catchpole 20:34, 11 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 failing WP:WEB. Yomanganitalk 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo Bob[edit]

Not notable. Does not comply with WP:WEB. Simonkoldyk 18:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Should also include Eskimo Bob characters in this AfD as well. --141.156.232.179 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. I slapped {{db-web}} tags on both pages; I don't think {{db-web}} existed yet when this nomination was made. hopefully an admin will just nuke both articles. --Aaron 23:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blammed one, but not this main article. I really hate this argument but Eskimo Bob actually had a fairly large internet following. I'll look up stats when I'm less busy. Yanksox 02:12, 3 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As usual for this type of article, no reliable sources, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Simonkoldyk 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alexa ranking of 1,782,948. Definitely fails WP:WEB. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has had a large internet following in the past, goes on and off. it's in a bit of a lull now but this article has been active for well over a year now, it just needs a bit of work Cancellorian 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An active article dosen't mean we keep it on wikipedia. If it has a big enough fan base it should be able to pass WP:WEB. --Simonkoldyk 03:00, 11 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 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Isaacson[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable recording artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelnuneb (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 Redirect to Protest the Hero - Yomanganitalk 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Hoskin[edit]

None notable person. All the info in this stub is already covered in the Protest the Hero article. None Neutral Point of View. Vanity. --M8v2 00:43, 5 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 - aside from the argument below, this is also original research. Yomanganitalk 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dog (Hard Boiled)[edit]

Non-notable outside the movie, and a minor enough role that there's no point in merging. Virogtheconq 05:52, 6 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 Eluchil404 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mirabal[edit]

None notable person. Not neutral point of view. Poorly written. Vanity. Copyright violation--M8v2 02:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - umm, so noone reverted a pretty obvious copyvio dump a while ago, but that is no reason to delete the article on a pretty well known artist. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Google search reveals he is notable with multiple press sources covering him and several CDs on sale at Amazon.com. Vic sinclair 05:31, 9 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. Xoloz 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaghayegh Farahani[edit]

None notable person. Fails WP:BIO. IMDB only has 3 entrys. Vanity--M8v2 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain, leaning towards keep. It's a bit tough to determine where to draw the line for an Iranian stage/film actress. However, according to the IMDB, Leila, one of her movies, was distributed internationally and apparently got a certain amount of critical attention, including a New York Times review. However, she's the 7th cast member listed, so it's hard to say how big the part was. The IMDB cast list doesn't even give a name to her character ("second wife"), but on the other hand it doesn't give a name to any of the characters except the two main protagonists. This one is too close to call, so no vote from me, but it definitely isn't a clear-cut case for deletion. Nominator's accusation of vanity is almost certainly untrue: article creator has been around since 2005 and has many other contributions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I had typed in "delete" after looking at IMDB, but then did a Google search. She seems to be famous among Iranians, although nearly all the Web sites seem to be in Persian. She starred in "Butterfly in the Wind" and won the "Best Actress" award for that role at the 2004 Amiens International Film Festival[26], and she was interviewed by the Iranian Times Web site (in Persian and in a PDF file which I can't figure out how to translate). There are 129 or so English Google hits and about 3,500 in total. You could certainly make the case that she's only worth an article in a Farsi Wikipedia and not in English I suppose, but apparently those three movies on IMDB have been translated into English, so some people might be interested in her. There are lots of Iranian immigrants in the U.S.Noroton 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep just poking around google I was able to find quite a few sites in Arabic with this person's name. I am not going to pretend that I can read Arabic and google was pretty much unable to translate the sites for me. Despite these problems, the number of name matches alone leads me to believe that she is probably notable enough to be worthy of inclusion. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Noroton said that language was Persian not Arabic. Either way, same problem applied, I just wanted to make sure my mistake was noted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:34, 6 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 Protest the Hero. Titoxd(?!?) 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Millar[edit]

None notable person. All the info in this stub is already covered in the Protest the Hero article. None Neutral Point of View. Vanity.--M8v2 00:42, 5 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Tarokh[edit]

Based upon Vahid Tarokh's own request for deletion of this page. Please see the talk page Ghlobe 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy delete. Sounds at least borderline notable based on the infromation in the article, but my opinion is that if a borderline or questionable article subject wishes their article to be deleted, we should honour that request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence *at all* that Tarokh blanked it; please also see my comment below. -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per comments by Starblind above. Change to Strong Keep as per comments below by Splash. Even if Vahid Tarokh is the one requesting the article be deleted(which I doubt), I'm not sure it would be a consideration. This guy is notable enough to warrant an article... whether he likes it or not. Jcam 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man seems more than notable enough for wikipedia: through his inventions, through the awards, through the honorary degrees (I don't think someone would get an honorary degree from Harvard for nothing) and through being "one of the Top 10 Most Cited Researchers in Computer Science according to the ISI web of science." Also, I would need to see proof that 72.70.95.56 (talk · contribs) is indeed Vahid Tarokh himself, before considering the request. Furthermore, I'm not in favour of deleting articles because the subject requests it: either people are notable enough for wikipedia and they get an article, or they're not notable enough and they don't get an article. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on resume. The subject certainly meets WP:PROF and we keep many more borderline cases simply because of slightly higher public notability or infamy for other reasons. The user's request is a valid consideration but not sufficient by itself in this case. (Apologies.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable and as the last 2 comments stated, just because the subject wants an article deleted, that doesn't mean it should be. The subject is of course quite welcome to help correct any inaccuracies in the article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, incredibly famous person in the field in which I just completed my PhD - he invented a scheme (space-time coding, see also space-time block code and space-time trellis code) that changed the face of wireless communications research at a stroke. He is faculty at Harvard. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the person who blanked the article and its talk page is Tarokh himself. The article is rather poor because it was written by a student/employee of Tarokh's who had some reflected vanity issues; I got beaten to writing it myself but believe me that he is one of the most notable individuals in the whole of the field. His two most famous papers, references [6] and [7] in space-time block code are amongst the most widely cited journal articles in wireless. (Don't believe what you read at Citeseer; it's rubbish at this kind of thing.) -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent. Also, the vandalism in this case (i.e. anon blanking of article and talk page) unfortunately ruined the credibility of this deletion request. Dl2000 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and the AfD is solely based on (unnecessary) modesty from the person it deals with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:51, 8 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 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bros (lifestyle)[edit]

I tagged this article as initially unreferenced and possible OR (among other problems), and the creator kept removing all the tags (even the unrelated ones) and putting in a single reference link to UrbanDictionary, despite my telling him that it was not really a reliable source. He then blanked the article and asked for its deletion. I can see it may be a valid subject for an article, but as yet I've been unable to come up with any sources for this slang (besides the better-known ones already in widespread usage) so am bringing it to AfD for wider discussion over whether this really is a known, verifiable subculture. ~Matticus TC 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Bros", of course, gets zillions of Google hits, being a major pop band as well as part of Warner Bros, Super Mario Bros, etc. But Bros +offroading produces nothing relevant in the first few pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless some good sources are found (which isn't totally out of the question on a topic like this, I could see some magazine writing a feature about it or something). Recury 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up on the trail one day. --Dhartung | Talk 15:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and that's not even what bro means. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:14, 6 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 13:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men Win Fights[edit]

Incomplete nom started by Secondtonine. No reason given. First AFD here. Yomanganitalk 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, I was awaiting a response to my help request as I have bungled the AFD codes.
Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:Vanity. Please also see the previous [log]. Secondtonine 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom 656 Ghits--Jusjih 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC.-- danntm T C 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. --Charlesknight 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the criteria for notability listed in WP:BAND, and, as such, there are no reputable, third-party sources from which to confirm the contents are required by WP:V. --Satori Son 20:08, 12 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 11:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Whyte[edit]

Unverified claims of being a 5x polyglot and award-winning German-English composer, singer, and author at 16 aside, no relevant Google searches or references have been provided in the 48 hours this has been open. "References" include a personal website (domain registered on 05 October 2006 by his mother, apparently), a link to his mother's website, and a link to a performance of one of the operas mentioned that does not give his name (birth or current). Delete; this belongs on his site, not ours. -- nae'blis 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom--Jusjih 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Likely either a hoax or exaggeration: it's hard to imagine Pagliaccio played by a 12-year-old (the part is usually a tenor), and it's equally hard to imagine someone with a professional theatre career using the word "casted" instead of "cast". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promotion. (Use of "casted" probably because he's German.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems very dubious. Agree with above. - Triviaa 21:39, 6 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, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canee[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Creator's username is suspicious. Ghits aren't relevant. Contested prod. MER-C 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the word is useless, if you don't wanna say God, just say "bless you" --WikiSlasher 14:05, 6 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 compelling evidence provided that it meets WP:SOFTWARE. No reason it can't be recreated if such evidence comes to light. Yomanganitalk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeping[edit]

Non-notable software. Contested prod. MER-C 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you think this is non-notable software? O.K. 14:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the proposed deletion notice and the above nomination are poor, and should have linked to WP:SOFTWARE at the very least. Uncle G 15:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per this. Jcam 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article fails to assert notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. This is just a stub. Hope somebody will improve this. Written by the same author, smokeping is not less relevant than MRTG.
  • Delete as per nom. No assertion of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a software directory Bwithh 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counterargument -- Wikipedia is not a list of individuals either, however people keep writing articles about other people all the time... O.K. 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: and we try to delete as many of them that aren't notable as possible. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that the article itself needs significant improvment, but the smokeping is not less notable than a network analysis and management tool MRTG, for example. Why do you insist deleteng just one of these related articles? O.K. 22:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while it needs work, Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge. This keeps wikipedia accurate. Today, everyone wants an article deleted. Uncle Kitia 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fairly new here, but I'm curious why you bolded Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge.
    Which policy exactly states that? I see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on the What Wikipedia is not page, with That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as part of the section. As the article is written now...I see a possible copyvio, but no assertion of notability. --Onorem 00:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That they are, and which category does Smokeping fall into? Please explain your reasoning. Either way, I still don't see a policy that says, "Wikipedia is supposed to be a sum of all existing knowledge." Please note that I haven't voted to delete. I don't feel I know enough about the product. I was only making an observation about Uncle Kitia's comment.--Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm new too0, but don't you think that that poor African child should be aware of smokekeeping? Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, not beingmade smaller. Uncle Kitia 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What poor African child? It may be true that Wikipedia is supposed to be growing, but that doesn't mean that every article written should be a part of it. I could write an article about the items on my desk. Is that knowledge? Does that belong? --Onorem 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprised! What kind of evidence do you need? Just some time ago Jcam has pointed out that smokeping is a part of Debian distribution. The software is notable, however the stub I inserted need significant work to become an article. Which one is more notable a screwdriver or hammer? The same applies with network tools. When MRTG or RRDtool are notable enough to be included, why would you say this particular tool is less notable? O.K. 13:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pleas of "You can't delete X when Y has an article" are generally discouraged. Each article has to assert its own notability and provide sources. Vic sinclair 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability evidence by Brainboost -- What is Smokeping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.37.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:Notability, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:NOT Article does not assert notability for this piece software, wikipedia isnt a listing of software programs. MidgleyDJ 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still asserts no notability, no indication of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Sandstein 09:11, 14 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 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory[edit]

This is a bollocks-ridden "fringe theory". It has not been published in any reliable sources — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (Medical Hypotheses particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page [27]). It also fails notability policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is original research as well. Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.

Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.Byrgenwulf 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, here. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are claiming that you are Huping Hu and also that you are the author of the two articles. Is that correct? If so I add WP:NPOV to my vote. And 72.89.197.56 (talk · contribs), please review WP:NLT and note that making legal threats in the Wikipedia is gravely frowned upon.---CH 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BOLLOCKS. This article reads like pure pseudoscientific newagery; there is a bit about (poorly described) physical background but no indication of how spin states are supposed to generate conciouness, so the article completely fails in its mission of even describing the alleged "theory". NeuroQuantology?!! Is this yet another crankjournal? Sheesh! Can we consolidate this AfD with the biography? I agree with User:Anville that even a cursory examination raises the issue of WP:VAIN. ---CH 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had an article on NeuroQuantology at some point, but it met a justly deserved fate (PRODed, I believe, not AfD). A Google Scholar search on that journal was quite illuminating, as was a perusal of its website. . . but that's not really a topic germane to this discussion. Anville 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. linas 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!* No current theory of consciousness will be the correct one. Or even close to the correct one. They will all verge on scientism. But, based upon this article in Wikipedia, this Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (SMCT) looks like the best one we've got so far. Please don't discourage serious attempts at the hard problem of consciousness by immediately deleting every theory which is proposed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.66.41 (talk • contribs) — 68.81.66.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete No evidence of notability; the theory is a bollocks-ridden fringe theory whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. John Baez 04:18, 9 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 either vandalism or an advert for a company that would require practically a complete overhaul in order to make an article. Given that the creator of the article, berf (talk · contribs), has given us such silliness as Berf and Everett Lobster, both of which were silly vandalism, it is highly probable that a one-sentence article on a company with no supporting citations and only a borough name to go on for context is simply more of the same. I strongly suspect, given prior deleted edits (which I won't provide specifics of because they are personally identifying), that the author has just invented this company, and even if it were real this would be self-promotion. Uncle G 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berf art[edit]

Is it advertsing or vanity? Also does not meet WP:CORP or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per new criteria G11, also has a huge image that should go too. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete including image so awful it made me... berf. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an obvious advertisement without even the slightest claim of notability. AdamBiswanger1 15:30, 6 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 11:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Matta[edit]

Non Notable , no peer reviewed publications referenced in article. JRSP 15:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Storkk 12:20, 4 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, W.marsh 15:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google search turns up a couple of potential sources ([28], [29]), but these really don't provide enough context to sustain an article. It seems that the "proof" may be well-founded (if it were, I'd think wed have heard more about such a long-standing problem). The viewpoint of the proof seems to be held only by the subject of the article, and so mentioning it in Euclidean geometry would violate WP:NPOV. Therefore, I don't think this article or any of its content is salvageable. — TKD::Talk 23:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:49, 7 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 Yomanganitalk 15:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min Zhou[edit]

Tagged A7 but contested, so bringing to AfD. No particular evidence of passing the professor test. Guy 14:31, 28 September 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, W.marsh 15:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's not difficult to pass the professor test, but I don't think this woman does. AdamBiswanger1 15:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If her contribution to the concept of social capital is sufficiently notable, it might be argued that info about that contribution should be merged into social capital per WP:PROF#Caveats. But her contribution is already mentioned there. I would leave it up to the editors of social capital whether the mention of her contribution should be expanded. Pan Dan 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claims in the article suggest sufficient notability and there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt them. Deli nk 19:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't see any claims that meet WP:BIO and more importantly, their is a lack of verifiable information here.--Isotope23 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.No peer reviewed journal article cited in article.Edison 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deli nk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable independent sources to attest to her meeting any criterion of WP:PROF. Sandstein 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, whoop, an award-winning [30] and peer-honored [31] woman academic scorned by Wikipedia as less notable than a working whore who has been given a "year's best blowjob" award by two dozen guys who watch porn all day and blog about it [and that's all that WP:PORN requires for notability]. Sick, pathetic, disgusting. VivianDarkbloom 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Just a suggestion, if you have such a problem with WP:PORN BIO (which isn't even policy or guideline... it's a nonbinding proposal which has no real bearing on anything), there is a whole discussion page you can register your disgust on.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and please do nominate for deletion as many porn "stars" for whom there is no verifiable independent data as you can find. I'll be the one advocating Delete. Guy 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the professor test and reads like vanity. Guy 09:27, 13 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 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkleboi[edit]

Advert for non-notable podcast. -- RHaworth 15:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 43,000 odd Google hits, though. None of them, however seem to be from a serious, authoritative website. AdamBiswanger1 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an advert for what you may call a "Non-Notable" podcast, it's appearance on wikipedia acts to provide listeners old and new with information on how it all began. Twinkleboi was one of the first gay voices of UK podcasting to make an impact in the USA, and to this day, is a much loved part of the pod-o-sphere— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.14.68 (talk • contribs)
  • Twinkleboi was one of the first podcasts I ever subscribed to, and has been an interesting, informative and humourous link to the Mother Country for me. His show provides a valuable resource to young Gay people in not only the UK, but around the world. The name Twinkleboi is synonomous with gay UK podcasting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsworld (talk • contribs)
  • Delete no assertion of notability, close to the expanded A7. Eluchil404 08:18, 11 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jade on neighbours[edit]

Non-notable bit of fan cruft. -- RHaworth 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oh no ya don't. AdamBiswanger1 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total fancruft, possibly verifiable, but not notable. --Mnemeson 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete There are far less notable entries on Wikipedia than this one. It'll hardly become notable if it's deleted. The "unencyclopedic" entry is the only real valid point here, and yet this could be changed with a cleanup - many likewise events are noted on Wikipedia, numerous of them on celebrity biographies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.246.31 (talk • contribs)

*Don't Delete (duplicate !vote by 155.143.246.31) "Oh no ya don't"? What is this supposed to mean? This comment seems vindictive and/or malicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.246.31 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - hi there, 155.143.246.31. Wikipedia is a place to document things that are notable, not a place to put things in order to make them well enough known that they are notable. Please read our guidelines on WP:Notability, and WP:NOT to see what should and shouldn't go in. --Mnemeson 14:33, 9 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IK Makkabi Stockholm[edit]

Non-notable minor amateur football club playing in level 8 of the Swedish football pyramid. As a comparison, English football clubs are only considered notable if playing in level 10 or above, and England has about five times more players than Sweden. – Elisson • Talk 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Wrong, English clubs are listed even at levels 11 and twelve (The 61 F.C. (Luton)). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and resource for information. NYC2TLV 07:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to know that there are clubs that have either been playing at a higher level, or that have not been AfDed. That is no reason for this article to be kept. See WP:CORP, clubs playing at level 11 or higher need to be notable in other ways than playing in their league. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yes. Wikipedia is a resource for information, yes. What support does that give to keep this article? Please read WP:N. – Elisson • Talk 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the articles creator and disagree with this deletion because this club is not just a minor league football club but also an establishment that was crucial in the development of the Maccabi World Union in Sweden as well as an outlet and part of history of the Jews in Sweden. I can understand that this isn't so obvious based on the little information that was posted on the page. – NYC2TLV • Talk 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I can't see how this club is an important part of the history of Jews in Sweden. Care to explain? – Elisson • Talk 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Give us some WP:RS. Punkmorten 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also KSC Maccabi Antwerp, Sport Club Maccabi Bruxelles, TuS Maccabi e.V. Düsseldorf, TuS Bar Kochba Nürnberg and Maccabi Paris. All seem equally non-notable. Punkmorten 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. Should show something like newspaper articles to document importance.Edison 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In accordance with much of football's significance worldwide, this club's notability is cultural rather than sporting. DublinDilettante 14:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is this club notable in a cultural way? There are tens of other "ethnic" clubs in Stockholm alone. What makes this so special compared to those? Or in fact, special in a cultural way compared to any other football club at level 8? – Elisson • T • C • 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/merge to list of Maccabi sports teams or something like that. Punkmorten 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regardless of other peoples comments, these clubs are the pinnacle of developement for the Maccabiah and are historically important members of Jewish society in the diaspora. SpeechFreedom 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still no source whatsoever that this particular club has been notable in the Swedish Jewish community in any way. To the closing admin, note that this user has exactly zero edits since late June, until this AfD. – Elisson • T • C • 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands the article does not assert the club's claim to notability. Qwghlm 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well below the bar for notability of football clubs, fails WP:V. Oldelpaso 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons above. HornetMike 00:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too far down the food chain to be notable. BTW Has someone opened the sock drawer? BlueValour 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if we have minor-league baseball teams (which we do, and definitely should), why not minor league soccer teams? Especially if they have a cultural importance. -Patstuart 03:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have plenty of articles on teams in minor leagues (take a look at some of the football club categories), but generally not this minor. This club plays in the eighth level of Swedish football, way way down from the professional level. The article Swedish football league system lists leagues down to level 5, with 28 teams playing at level 3, 72 teams at level 4 and 144 at level 5. Hundreds if not thousands of Swedish teams play at a higher level. Oldelpaso 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Around 2000 teams play at the same level or a higher level than this club. – Elisson • T • C • 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reason as per Qwghlm, above --MLD 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jewishness alone does not equal notability. As the club is non-notable in every other way the article should go. aLii 17:49, 13 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. Titoxd(?!?) 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SK Hakoah Malmö[edit]

Non-notable minor amateur football club playing in level 8 of the Swedish football pyramid. As a comparison, English football clubs are only considered notable if playing in level 10 or above, and England has about five times more players than Sweden. – Elisson • Talk 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you provide a link that confirms them playing at level 8, since one is not found in the article? Punkmorten 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swedish FA - Division 6 table, Division 6 in this case means level 8 as the Swedish league system starts with Allsvenskan, Superettan, and then Division 1. It should also be noted that there are 6 fourth level leagues, 12 fifth level leagues, ≈30 sixth level leagues, ≈50 seventh level leagues and then ≈70 eight level leagues... – Elisson • Talk 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article. The club is an important part of the history of the Jews in Sweden and is as well a social club that doesn't just have an amateur football club. Part of the Maccabi World Union it is a good resource to find information on such clubs history, see SC Hakoah Wien for instance. Please don't delete this article. Why do you think it is in the Maccabi category? So we wouldn't go through this with our clubs. This is also a great resource for people who are looking for information on them when most information is in Swedish. NYC2TLV 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I can't see how this club is an important part of the history of Jews in Sweden. Care to explain? And being a social club doesn't make it notable. And being part of a category does also not make it notable. And the article being in English when most information on the club is in Swedish does also not make it notable. – Elisson • Talk 20:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. More reliable sources needed to show the importance. Edison 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in its own write, Jewish clubs are historically important to their communities and the shaping of these communities in the diaspora. Each on has a specific geography and importance to the developement of each community. I would even go as far to suggest that the entire hierarchy of Swedish football (every club listed) be allowed to be on Wiki since they are difficult to find information about them/their backgrounds and histories.SpeechFreedom 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still no source whatsoever that this particular club has been notable in the Swedish Jewish community in any way. And no, not every damn club in the Swedish football system should have an article on Wikipedia. That'd be madness. To the closing admin, note that this user has exactly zero edits since late June, until this AfD. – Elisson • T • C • 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands the article does not assert the club's claim to notability. Qwghlm 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several divisions below the professional level, fails WP:V. Oldelpaso 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per reasons above. Also there is speculation in past Afds that the two supporters of this article, SpeechFreedom and NYC2TLV are the same person. HornetMike 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - far too far down the food chain to be notable. BlueValour 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reason as per Qwghlm, above --MLD 12:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jewishness alone does not equal notability. As the club is non-notable in every other way the article should go. aLii 17:50, 13 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 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Yvette[edit]

I will take on this project and straighten out the form issues on the page, it will just take some time. I'm still trying to figure out how to use the system. Arguement: Whether this gal is now 50 years old or not has nothing to do with the viability of her contributions to the adult industry for 25 years. Her porn contributions are mostly in the fetish arena, YES. This isnt as main stream as some others, but still notable in that market nitch. She's very well known in the BDSM community. It isnt just realing out porn videos as much as a LIFE spent entertaining men in most all arenas of adult entertainment. Have you ever popped into a Gentlemen's Club and met her over her 25 years? She's retiring at the end of 2006. This article is not self promotion of Ms Wilde however she provided information to the writer. I personally feel this just marks her place in history. How many of you have a Paradise Galleries doll made of you? This didn't happen "just because" RBFAST

Article as it stands right now does make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. This is arguably a Vanity one and possibly one that is Autobiographical, given that the the bulks of the edits to this article was done by User:Yvette38dd, who has not contributed to any other articles. Tabercil 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. WP:PORN BIO isn't an accepted guideline, but if it were, the article wouldn't pass that either as written. A leather-clad porn model who's old enough to be my grandmother.... ah, the things I go through for the good of wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 20:49, 9 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 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Student Association[edit]

Spammy article for a non-notable Student organisation, whose non-porcine contents have been merged with RWTH Aachen. Delete this and its fork PSA RWTH per precedent of other student societies viz:Warwick University, York University. Ohconfucius 04:25, 25 September 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, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references whatever. No evidence of notability.Edison 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless article.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 8 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 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voytek Kochanek (audio engineer)[edit]

notability and vanity Johnbrownsbody 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • references have been added. verbiage has been edited to avoid vanity.--Tommiwarner 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc." Guyanakoolaid 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hang on. The subject of this article is not 'indiscriminate'. This producer has made a significant and noteworthy impact on the music business by working with many high-profile artists. To substantiate notability:
1. added verifiable discography
2. added verifiable production credits—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommiwarner (talk • contribs) .
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, a google search of 'Voytek Kochanek' returns 85+ credible hits for industry associated credits including mixing, mastering, engineering, production, etc. Many of these credits directly relate his work with high-profile artists, professional studios, large labels, etc... --TommiW 15:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, failing WP:BIO. Working with notable people does not make you notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 18:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on Your assertion is absurd. What makes Mutt Lange or Bob Rock notable? I'll tell you what makes them notable; the fact they engineered and produced 'notable' people, which is completely contrary to your comment. Voytek Kochanek is an industry veteran, has worked for several major studios, and works with platinum selling artists every single day.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittyw (talk • contribs) .
  • Do Not Delete per WP:N: I have posted this subject's 'All Music Guide' discography which clearly establishes notability. Lets please move on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grammy2b (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wooldridge[edit]

The article currently violates WP:BIO (being a relative of notable people is a consideration for notability), and WP:V (from what I see in Google I can't find an article from a third-party reliable source about her specifically - lot of brief mentions, but not a substantial article). I don't care whether she's virtually a lock-in (per Rebecca's comments on the talk page) and the article will be recreated in six months, once she's a candidate (that's predicting the future aka crystal ball); rewrite the article in six months. It seems a little harsh, but I don't want Wikipedia turning into a election platform, and it looks like that's exactly what happened (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gymer). ColourBurst 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unelected candidates in non-national races don't seem notable enough to me. Deli nk 19:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the point of deleting this article now only to definitely have to recreate it later? Unlike Gymer, Wooldridge is a virtual certainty to be elected. Rebecca 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having a neutral point of view. Like I said, arbitrarily deciding the outcome of an election isn't the purpose of Wikipedia, even if it is guaranteed (of which we only have your word. See WP:V, which this article also doesn't meet.) ColourBurst 01:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page isn't here to arbitrarily decide the outcome of an election. It's here because she's notable, on the basis that she will, pending a major upset that no poll I've seen has so far predicted, enter parliament in a matter of months. It may be unsourced at present, but it's fairly clearly verifiable - do some research before complaining. Rebecca 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If her notability only hinges on the election outcome, then we're predicting she'll win (since candidates are not notable, whereas elected officials are). If she's notable by some other criteria in WP:BIO, then fine, she stays. However, the onus is on you to get the sources required, since you're arguing to keep the article. ColourBurst 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • . I know Mary Wooldridge and she will meet WP:BIO if she is elected to the Victorian parliament. A search of EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand database comes up with some mentions of her name. However, it might not be enough to get her over the line at the moment. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political candidates are not notable until they get elected. She has not been elected yet. Seems very clear-cut to me. Lankiveil 05:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • What on earth is the purpose of deleting an article now when we know we will have to recreate it in less than a month and it has perfectly verifiable content? This is deletionism gone silly. Rebecca 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rebecca. The difference bewteen Wooldridge and Gymer is that Wooldridge will likely be elected, where as Gymer has no chance. Teiresias84 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not meet WP:BIO (notability) or WP:V (Verifiability) guidelines. The application of these criteria should be consistent in Wikipedia. The article is furthering the profile of a political candidate while the article of a peer candidate (Chris Gymer) has just been deleted. Also note that she is running in a marginal seat (Doncaster), and may not be elected. If she is, an article would be warranted. --Peter Campbell 03:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this supposed to be revenge for the Gymer deletion? Gymer had no chance of being elected, whereas Wooldridge is a virtual-certainty. The article would be easily verifiable if anyone actually bothered to do so, and will undoubtedly be recreated in exactly this state in three weeks time if it is deleted now. This is plainly silly. Rebecca 08:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, this is not revenge. If this was a real motive I would have nominated this article for deletion, and you will recall that I chose not to. I don't think it is silly to apply policy and guidelines in a consistent manner - I think this is just good process, and quite straightforward. Conversely, I don't think that bending or interpreting guidelines based on perceptions about what may happen in the future is good practice or fair. --Peter Campbell 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We're not bending anything. Deleting a page now, only to have to definitely recreate exactly the same article in exactly the same state is the very definition of stupidity. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think it is stupid at all, so let's agree to differ. I have copyedited the content to [32] and will reinstate the article if it is deleted and she gets elected. However, it does need more references and content to improve it from being an electioneering puff piece. Peter Campbell 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is the point of taking it off the site when it has potential readers? Delete it after the election if the unlikely occurs and she actually loses. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup This article currently only cites self-published works (the candidate's web site, and the liberal party web site). This does not conform with wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Andjam 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She gets a page when she gets elected, not as part of her election campaign. Besides, she is not a shoo-in. The margin in her seat is only a couple of percent, and she replaces a prominent and long-serving member.--Michael Johnson 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an election within 45 days in Victoria. If this article is kept, then from a NPOV I would think that all candidates should be allowed an article. The problem is that a Wiki entry will come up in a Google search, and may give the impression that one candidate is "more notable" than others. The question we should be asking, is strip the article of any mention of her standing for Parliament, and is she notable enough? And BTW I would have voted for the Gymer deletion, too. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with giving all candidates pages, but I'm clearly in the minority on that one. What I do take serious objection to, is deleting a page on someone who is almost definitely going to win, as deleting a page when one knows that one will definitely have to recreate it in three weeks is madness. And her imminent entry into parliament is the reason why she is notable, so excluding that from the rationale would be rather illogical. Rebecca 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncaster would take a swing of 0.8% to fall to the Labor party. Given that long-term members are normally supposed to have a personal vote of 1 to 2%, I'd be working hard for her right now, because if everything else stays the same, she is gone. So no, it is not a sure thing. As has been said before, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As for all candidates having articles, well perhaps you are right, but that is not the status quo on Wikipedia right now. BTW, it would be nothing to copy the edit page on the article and store it on your computer for a few weeks. --Michael Johnson 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that every single poll I've seen in recent months has showed a swing to the Liberal Party, which makes Wooldridge's victory a virtual certainty. Having to take the article off the site for three weeks is stupid - in the unlikely event that she loses, delete the article then. Rebecca 09:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca, the article is here because the subject is notable. RFerreira 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca. Peter, I don't find your suggestion very satisfactory because the history will be lost, violating the GFDL. The best option is to keep the article and delete it after the election if need be. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But as previously noted, this gives her some electoral advantage over other candidates - which is pretty clearly the intent of the article. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Peter Campbell 13:42, 11 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 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Rate[edit]

Straight copy of data from another source, not a copyvio, but not useful. Not an article. Is an orphan. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.It is a straight copy but so are all the other lists (ie: gdp/flags ext). However I have changed the stats from # per 1000 to # per 100,000. I feel it is more conceptually realistic when dealing with murder rates.

    I think it is quite relevant as the murder rate of both the world and individual countries is likely to be of interest to people (I know it was to me since I was looking for it before starting this article) and yes it does have links from it.

    Also I would love to see more details added to it (maybe some statistics on whether the murder rate is rising or falling). I might do that myself in the next couple of days. --Maximg 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's as useful as List of countries by death rate is (and indeed as List of countries by suicide rate is), and it's sourced to a UN survey. It should of course be at List of countries by murder rate, per our Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming_conventions. Uncle G 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand/Cleanup Like Maximg, I once looked for some data on international murder rates on Wikipedia, but I came up empty at the time. While I think this article is far too bare-bones to be sufficient, I'd like to see a decent article on this subject expanded out of the bare data. -Markeer 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're probably looking for Murder#Murder_demographics. Uncle G 16:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but if you look you'll note the link at the top of that section leads back to the article currently being considered for AfD (i.e., it redirects to Murder Rate -Markeer 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to List of countries by murder rate thus wiping the redirect. The problem is this is a worthless article (because there is no prose content) but a valuable list so make the name fit the content and be done with it. --Richard 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ok give me a couple of hours and ill try and expand it into a larger article... --Maximg 06:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that the "article" starts by saying "This is a list..." and then provides a list. So, if it is a list, then rename the title to indicate that it is a list. A good article about murder rate might talk about comparisons of murder rates in different countries and what causes the differences (longer jail sentences, death penalty, strong law enforcement, education, poverty, etc.). Also a discussion of how murder rate data is collected and whether there are methodological issues in collection techniques that make it difficult to compare murder rate data across countries. Etc., etc., etc.
--Richard 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBut get some more up to date stats. Iraq isn't even in the list, with 2000 cops a year murdered and dozens of people murdered a day in Baghdad alone.Edison 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand because yes, the article needs more up to date stats on it. In the eight to six years since this report was researched and subsequently published, some rates have fallen and risen, sometimes significantly (Colombia wouldn't top the list if the same survey were made in 2005/2006, though it'd still be high). The list itself can stay, if necessary, but later and current trends should be reflected somehow. The list remains a good resource for showing what murder rates were like half a decade ago, but it's not that accurate today. Juancarlos2004 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Richard. Eluchil404 08:24, 11 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purvis Parker and Quadrevion Henning[edit]

Whilst I am very sorry these boys drownned, this seems to be little more than a footnote in local history. There is no ongoing investigation, no widespread media interest and no controversy surrounding the tragic accident, which unfortuntely is all too common worldwide Jackyd101 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As a Milwaukeean I must agree that this was only of local interest. Sulfur 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to withhold my decision for now as I'm curious what others' thoughts are. The story made it to the AP news wire and CNN, so maybe it was one of those epic "local boy trapped in the well" stories on a smaller scale. Sulfur 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there was sourcing to the news reports and so on, I figure it would be keepable. Edward Wakelin 18:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newsorthy, but not encyclopedia material. Deli nk 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial to everyone who died in a tragic accident.Edison 20:58, 7 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 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Build a website[edit]

Delete: The page is unencyclopediac. It has all the earmarks of a schoolkid's homework assignment. Orphan. No substantive work. Poorly written. Hu 15:44, 6 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cops (band)[edit]

This was tagged as CSD, but I believe it asserts notability. AfD'ing to get more input. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral not enough sources, but apparently they've released an album and appeared with the Distillers and Blondie. - FrancisTyers · 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, but even if this was verifiable, there's a huge difference between "appeared with" and "toured with". Every stop the Warped Tour makes sees the performances of about 15 local bands- do all those bands become notable because they "appeared with Green Day"? -- Kicking222 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you delete this article? this is one of my favorite bands!, the info here seems to check out. — 203.211.66.35 (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, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV article about a non-notable band. None of the reviews of their music come from reliable sources. They've released exactly one full-length album, and it was on a non-notable label. Having the Libertines' guitarist say he likes you does not make you significant. -- Kicking222 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 20:59, 7 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 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bukana[edit]

Not notable, perhaps vanity. See talk page-- I wish I'd read it before cleaning the thing up. Apparently this was a deletion that went awry back in October, 2005. User:Jwanders indicates intent to delete on the talk page. Only about 622 unique google hits. They have only one album on a not-notable label after 8 years of finding themselves.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:58, 26 September 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, W.marsh 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. Glad they found themselves.Edison 21:00, 7 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 - Yomanganitalk 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transparent Reality Simulation[edit]

tagged as copyvio, but author of the web site is the author of the article and releases under GFDL. Strong smell of vanity, no evidence of importance as yet. Guy 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Very Weak Keep But Definite Rewrite If Kept Article is verifiable and reports cited suggest that it may be notable, though it does seem dubious at best. The copied text does however reak of vanity, so it requires a rewrite if it's kept. Canadian-Bacon t c e 00:02, 27 September 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, W.marsh 16:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, definitely rewrite. Not only is the article written from a vanity position, it's also confusingly written (or I'm just out of it today, which is also a definite possibility).Edward Wakelin 17:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important new technology, has references to prove it. The concept is not a simple one, but that is true of lots of new technology. Do not delete just because you are confused after reading it.. Ask a question on the discussion page, and maybe the creator of the article will add clearer explanation of what confuses you.Edison 21:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected - original nom not calling for a delete, so just BOLDly redirecting. – Chacor 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Hurricane Names[edit]

Redundant, theres already a List of tropical cyclone names article. Delete- Storm05 15:58, 6 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 - Yomanganitalk 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trivia from Pulp Fiction[edit]

A whole article about trivia isn't needed at all. Per WP:TRIVIA, and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, this page doesn't belong. RobJ1981 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pulp Fiction invites so much trivia (I've indulged in an edit or two myself) that it almost seems like this article should exist as an intentional stopping point on the way for these tidbits headed towards removal. Metaphorically send all the trivia to this article, slam the door shut, ignore any screams you hear. - Richfife 16:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful and notable back into the original article. Note that WP:TRIVIA does not prohibit trivia sections in articles. What needs to be done is the most important/notable trivia needs to be picked out and, if possible, integrated into the main article text. 23skidoo 16:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with 23skidoo. Can't decipher Richfife's comments. Please rewrite in clear English.Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I could tell you what I meant, but then I'd have to kill you. - Richfife 06:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Reply I assume, then, that your Delete statement is not to be taken seriously. Ward3001 18:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivia sections are bad enough in the main articles, never mind giving them separate ones. Integrate and rewrite the most encyclpaedic points into the article, in context, and shoot the rest down in a big lexical blood bath. The JPStalk to me 19:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this "list" was obviously ripped off from the main article with hope to keep the main text clean. Merge it and damage the main text, delete it and the cruft will start to grow in the main article immediatelly. See Category:In popular culture for working examples how to effectively deal with cruft in current structure of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consistently remove the trivia from this section. I don't see how "people are going to add it" is a reason to let it stay on site so much as a reason to patrol the main article and ensure it stays clean. GassyGuy 08:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of this material is available at IMDB's trivia page and doesn't fit in an encyclopedia. Interesting read though.
  • Merge: Some of this is relevant to the main page,though a lot of it is garbage.Desdinova 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete; trivia = trivial = unencyclopedic. I'd suggest merging any relevant information into Pulp Fiction (film), but none of it is referenced. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial Delete! Widefox 01:48, 15 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 Talk 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Vasi[edit]

This article fails WP:BIO. At best, there appears to be one newsworthy event she has been involved in -- she has been rumored to date Russell Simmons. I don't see anything else in the sampling of the 770 search engine hits. If she were in fact dating Simmons (which does not appear to have been confirmed), that would not render her notable -- we don't create articles on the dates of the rich and famous here. CSD declined despte no assertion of notability in the article. Erechtheus 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - no notability asserted. retagged. You cannot decline speedy deletion on the grounds of an unspecified external search allegedly demonstrating unspecified notablity. Thryduulf 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:57, 6 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 11:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huping Hu[edit]

Biography of a "biophysicist and attorney in private practice". Liberally seasoned with "citation needed" tags, this article fails to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) proposal (not to mention notability practice in general) and is almost certainly a vanity piece. The anon IP who created it, 24.185.23.19 (talk · contribs), also edited New York Law School, which Hu apparently attended, as well as spamming Consciousness, Spin and Quantum mind with Hu's Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (currently also up for deletion). Anville 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Good work rooting him out. Byrgenwulf 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Deli nk 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thryduulf 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tempshill 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Huping Hu. This piece was initially written by me when Wikipedia was in its infant stage back in 2004 as a way to introduce our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory and its originator, me, because someone cited our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory in the Consciousness and, I believe, quantum mind entry. Of course, I'm not notable and vanity is last thing I have in mind. I'm perfect happy with my life and work without any entry to Wikipedia. Please be advised that Anville's statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous. Our Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory speaks for itself and if it was added or edited within quantum mind and spin the purpose was related to relevancy not vanity. May GOD bless Wikipedia and its participants so that it may stay useful, innovative, diverse and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.56 (talk • contribs)
Warning: your statement "Please be advised that Anville's statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous" is in clear violation of WP:NLT. ---CH 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some evidence that our anon is indeed Huping Hu:
The dyn.optonline.net anon used 24.185.23.19 (talk · contribs) from 27 November 2004 to 12 April 2005; geolocated Brooklyn, NY
The nycmny.east.verizon.net anon used 72.89.197.56 (talk · contribs) which is so far a single use account; apparently geolocated in NYC area; note that East Village, Manhattan is near NYU.
Make of this what you will.---CH 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems to be a clear case of WP:VAIN. Good work, Anville, Thryduulf, and UncleG! ---CH 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linas 04:29, 8 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 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MySource Matrix[edit]

nn software--Dsfbs 16:37, 26 September 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, W.marsh 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing in the article to say why it is notable; no third-party coverage cited. Thryduulf 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 21:04, 7 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 14:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bandname.com[edit]

spam--Dsfbs 16:32, 26 September 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, W.marsh 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Deli nk 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that is meets WP:WEB. Thryduulf 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verifiable evidence of notability. Article contains little nore than a directory listing.Edison 21:04, 7 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 please provide a reasoned argument for deletion in any future AFDs - Yomanganitalk 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Recording Company[edit]

nncomapny--Dsfbs 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be provided, and the article cleaned up and formatted. As it stands, it is almost unreadable. Johnbrownsbody 16:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete! Ultimate was a well-known indie label in the UK - and many of the bands on the label were also well-known and sucessful within their genres. How about explaining how Ultimate is not notable! Granted - the article needs work though... NickW 20:27, 27 September 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, W.marsh 17:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this explains why it's not notable. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Merge with Planet Dog. Although this is the parent company, Planet Dog was more successful and left more of a continuing influence - GHits for "Planet Dog" Music here. I remember this label well and own several of its releases but only Senser and Levitation retain cult followings. Ac@osr 20:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteorMerge No references, no verifiable evidence of notability.Edison 21:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - hits on Google is a shocking way of assessing the notability of a subject - and relying primarily on the web to verify a subject is similarly shoddy. Not everything of note appears on the web. Verifiable evidence of notability for Ultimate includes numerous physical objects - i.e. vinyl / CD / cassette releases - of successful bands. How is none of this not notable (personal ignorance or lazy research excepted)? NickW 10:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of meeting WP:CORP. That guideline's criteria do not include the popularity of the company's products. Sandstein 07:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if they cared about the reader, they wouldn't dump data like that. Ad, for computers (bad ad). Widefox 02:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and edit away the OR. El_C 07:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary argument against naturalism[edit]

Page is the result of original research reading like a master's thesis. On top of that, it is already covered here and makes this look more like an unnecessary PoV fork. ju66l3r 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: I just noticed that this page was put in the wrong AfD category. Philosophy-inclined wikipedians would be much better suited to evaluate the real relevance of the article. This is not an article about "science and technology". --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can't find an appropriate category; there should be something like "humanities." I am concerned that a philosophical argument is being dismissed because science-oriented Wikipedians fault philosophy's methodology. I find fault with philosophy's methodology, too, but I think that philosophical arguments should be evaluated using the tools of philosophy. I have asked for comments on this issue here, at the main AFD talk page. Lamont A Cranston 12:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recatted to 'S', society topics (which includes humanities) per WT:AFD. You could always change the cat to '?' (nominator unsure) if you aren't sure where it should go. --ais523 10:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps merging anything useful into the other article mentioned. It definitely reads like OR.Edward Wakelin 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not OR. It is sourced and presents a philosopher's argument that has attracted enough attention to warrant a book rebutting the argument (Naturalism Defeated?). I agree that the argument is poor, but there needs to be an article, because currently Metaphysical naturalism, Alvin Plantinga, and Critique of atheism each deal with this argument separately. At Critique of atheism we reached more-or-less consensus that this argument needed to be moved from that article, and a new article is the best place for it. Lamont A Cranston 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Alvin Plantinga article is the best place for it. Too much prominence for a faulty idea based on thinly stretched premices. `'mikka (t) 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the Critique of atheism the consensus was that it didn't belong in it's entirety there, but the dispute of it's actual existance was nowhere near settled. It has been said in the Critique of Atheism discussion that according to Plantinga's website this paper is unpublished, and therefore has not received a peer review. That coupled with the article presenting his views as undisputed fact, and the fact that these views can raise quite a few eyebrows and looks like a wedge issue for advocates of Intelligent Design (which is actually compatible with Plantinga's background), makes this article seem less informative, more like it's fullfilling an agenda. The use of secondary sources to refer to such a polemical subject is frowned to within guidelines, and given the fact that the paper is unpublished this maybe beyond repair. NPOV and RS issues aside. I would say epistemologists would agree that the importance is not in the arguments themselves, but in the debate, and that is not presented at all here. It should be recognized that he argues evolution is only possible if it is guided by a supernatural being, and therefore this is purely a philosophical argument for intelligent design, as far as I can see, if this belongs anywhere, it's in the ID article and presented as such. And as for Lamont's concerns above, maybe the deletion of this article is the precedent needed so other articles dont need to deal with this at all. Whether that is established or not, future edits should converge those articles' mentions of this argument linking to this one.Starghost (talk | contribs) 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed my previous vote, and am currently indifferent. I guess this argument is bound to resurface, or at least I believe it will be mentioned in Wikipedia in one form or another (it would be too long before editors would cede ground and give up on this argument on the other pages anyway). As some concerns are being adressed, such as the criticisms to the argument, I believe in time it may earn the right to a dignified existance. It is related published books and all, and we got plenty of other published crap anyway, so what the hell. Starghost (talk | contribs) 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. Covered in Alvin Plantinga article. It is Alvin's nonnotable and logically faulty original research. Good whed describing Alvin's views, but generally nonencyclopedic. There are zillions of various philosophical arguments for each philosophical issue by various philosophers, but unless it is duscussed by wide community, is is original research. Wikipedia is not a media for publication of original ideas, it is for reports about discussions of them. `'mikka (t) 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument is published at least in this book, and maybe in other places too. Also, the argument is considered notable enough "in the real world" to deserve a published collection of academic essays replying to it (see: [34]). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I echo Leinad & Lamont's reasons. And, for the record, I created the page. Gabrielthursday 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content on this page is already included in other articles. I see no need to create a spinout. Leave as a redirect page to Plantinga.--Andrew c 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The above statement was true when Andrew made the comment, but it is not true anymore. It is important to notice that the article was nominated for deletion as soon as it was created - giving no time for the text to be developed at all before all the above comments were made. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork per nom. I think that the keep arguments address the OR charge successfully, because I think the OR charge is a misguided interpretation of WP:OR. But none of the keep arguments address the charge that this is a POV fork from Metaphysical naturalism. Plantinga's argument deserves to be in Metaphysical naturalism, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Pan Dan 01:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the alleged PoV fork, I should think the fact that the article is a result of a rough consensus by opposing views on the merits of the argument would indicate that it is not. In discussion at Critique of atheism a number of points were made, including the fact that it needs to be expanded, as it is a quite technical and intricate argument. As such, it would overwhelm the Alvin Plantinga page. Moreover, since when do significant ideas go on their discoverer/postulator's articles? Meme isn't under Richard Dawkins, nor Deconstruction under Jacques Derrida. As for the relevance of the EAAN to metaphysical naturalism, it has the same problem we ran into in Critique of Atheism- it isn't a disproof of naturalism per se, but rather naturalism in conjunction with evolution.
    • Lastly, I think it is somewhat incumbent on the community to consider, if not defer to, the deliberations of the editors that led to the creation of the article, which may be found here. Gabrielthursday 05:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that having an extended discussion of it at Metaphysical naturalism is a mistake because the argument is not about naturalism per se, and it is distracting there. Plantinga's argument is not about naturalism or evolution, it is about the two combined. He says that Naturalism in conjunction with belief in evolution renders the premises that underly the two beliefs unreliable. Putting the argument in Alvin Plantinga is not appropriate - for some reason, other philosophers take his argument seriously. As I pointed out earlier, there is a published book criticising his argument (and with his responses). If professional philosophers take the argument seriously and debate it on its merits, there is no reason to conflate the argument with its proponent (I also second Gabrielthursday's comments on this issue). Lamont A Cranston 12:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, is the article still pending expansion? I can understand content-forking if there is too much to be said that cannot be covered in other articles. But as it stands, the content is largely redundent with existing pages, and is NOT expanded.--Andrew c 13:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is enough here to justify the article. The fact that two other articles want to discuss the argument (rather than the philosopher) justifies the article. Lamont A Cranston 13:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi, Andrew, I second Lamont's and Gabriel's comments. In addition, the article (that was created yesterday) is already larger than many stub-pages in Wikipedia (*update: as in 21:46, 7 October 2006, the text is now considerably larger than it was when Andrew made his last comment). There is continuing philosophical debate around the argument, but the critique section in the page is still based on comments from only one of the already existing critical reviews... There is certainly room for further expansion, not only of the criticism section, but also of the main argument. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 14:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the position is very thinly leveraged sophistry. If I reject epiphenomenalism then there is nothing left. But this article is better and more thought provoking than 90% of the crufty crud we are voting on. Edison 21:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Argument has an entire book written about it and is highly notable. Description of argument was previously at Plantinga biography and at criticisms of atheism; new location is better. — goethean ॐ 13:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alvin Plantinga unless a source is given that (1) other philosphers use (or would, at least, recognize) the arguement from the name of the article, and (2) other philosophers take it seriously. Neither is present at the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or Merge) - the article discusses a notable authority's opinions of a given subject, and so the material presented is entirely suitable for inclusion. Martin 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline keep. The reasons for deletion are not valid. The article is not POV as it is balanced with criticism, and the page does is not duplicated elsewhere now. EAAN seems to have been fairly widely discussed in the field (my personal view is the argument has a huge hole, evolution does select for rational thought, but thats my POV) Poujeaux 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to Keep as a legitimate spinout. I have previously misunderstood what a POV fork really is. As to WP:OR, as I said above, that charge is misguided. That policy forbids Wikipedians from inserting their own original research, not from inserting the original research of others. As to notability, the proponents of this article have shown that Plantinga's argument has elicited wide discussion in the philosophical community. Finally, this article should not be deleted even if Plantinga's argument is "logically faulty" (as one editor says above). Using that criterion we would have to delete Ontological argument. We keep or delete philosophical arguments based on notability of the argument and verifiability that the argument has been made, not actual merit of the argument. Pan Dan 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just added some text on the form that the argument took in a C.S.Lewis book. I had previously removed this material from an earlier version of the text when it was in the Alvin Plantinga article, as it was off-topic for that article. This Lewis material can be expanded upon. The article should thus not be merged with Alvin Plantinga. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 11 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 - Yomanganitalk 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Student Cultural Center[edit]

Was tagged as {{db-group}}, which seems appropriate (article contains no assertion of notability). Speedy tag removed without comment by Mike 7, so bringing it here. Looks like this group has never merited more coverage than in the local paper (WP:V, WP:RS). Consensus seems to be to delete student groups. (Warwick Student Arts Festival, University of York Filmmaking Society, Native Americans at Dartmouth College). Voting delete for lack of notability. Puerto De La Cruz 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. Deli nk 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Swansea University Computer Society was deleted with far greater claims to notability. Thryduulf 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per references going back 37 years. Appears to have been a pioneering effort of its sort.Edison 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native Americans at Dartmouth College is 36 years old according to the main Dartmouth College article, and we deleted that. The fact that this club has never been mentioned in anything other than local press [35] seems to suggest that it can't meet WP:RS. It may have been early, but I can't find evidence that it was early enough to be notable in this regard. Also note that the organization that was founded 37 years ago had a different name and represented different sexual preferences; this is a group that grew out of that one. Puerto De La Cruz 23:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable since it was one of the first GLBT student organizations in the country, founded in 1969. Can reference www.qscc.org for more information.Grewdawg 17:27 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That is their own site, thus not third-party. Please read the guideline. Thanks. Puerto De La Cruz 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I did create site, but created it because the Q.S.C.C. was worth merit mentioning because of its unique status as the first gay/lesbian student organization in the country, before the Stonewall riots in June 1969. That is why its history section is the longest. Futhermore, the guideline is "not set in stone". Thanks. User:Grewdawg 23:48 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sourced evidence for notability. Nonnotable organisations can have a long history, too. Sandstein 09:06, 14 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 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muze[edit]

Looks like a neologism to me. UrbanDictionary would probably be more appropriate. A couple of anonymous IPs claim they found it useful. Hawaiian717 18:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • World of Warcruft. Could probably be rewritten as an article about either muze.com or the Dutch Muze Records. Otherwise, delete. ergot 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism, used frequently by seemingly two people. If Muze Records and/or muze.com warrant articles keeping this around will not be of any benefit. Thryduulf 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeologism.Edison 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:05, 7 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 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac HT4100 Metal Aluminum Engine Litigation History[edit]

I can't see how this is in any way an encyclopedic article. There is no evidence cited that supports the notion that this case is notable. Deli nk 18:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD:G11 (Blatant advertising). "The following information is cited to alert any prospective purchaser..." to a class action lawsuit. Arguably this also meets CSD:G10 (attack pages). Thryduulf 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Advert. Spam. QuiteUnusual 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is poorly written and would need substantial sourcing and editing to warrant keeping. LHOON 12:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with LHOON, could be an interesting article if it wasn't so biased and un thought out.Puchscooter 15:25, 9 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 after expansion (and before clanup :-). `'mikka (t) 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia (disambiguation)[edit]

  • del. Whatever it is, it is not a disambiguation page. After deletion of erroneous and irrelevant entries we end with the list of historical periods of Russia, i.e., table of contents of the History of Russia. `'mikka (t) 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not necessary. --Ineffable3000 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are other objects named "Russia", like a ship [36] fighting during Crimean war in Sveaborg or a hotel. And the historical terminology listed on the page is quite useful. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is useful ,indeed, but a disambiguation page is a tool with very specific purpose, and explanation of historical terminology is not it. `'mikka (t) 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up and/or rewrite, and include other entities by this name. I would imagine that a ship and a hotel Pavel mentioned above aren't the only ones (but even if they are, it's already enough to keep the page). Not so sure as to whether the historical terminology is quite as useful. Leaving Little and White Russias makes some sense and could be convenient, but technically they do not belong on this disambiguation page, because "Russia" is only a part of their names.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you will have ships and hotels here, it would be OK, but now the page does not correspond its purpose. `'mikka (t) 22:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the point is that it is NOT a disambiguation page and therefore should be re-written. --Ineffable3000 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks like a disambiguation page to me. Gazpacho 23:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly; it only looks like disambig page. `'mikka (t) 00:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is one. Consider the title "Tsar of all the Russias" and compare Macedonia. Gazpacho 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a disambiguation page because it is a disambiguation page. I've added some other articles that belong on it as well. The headings could be improved, among other things, but need for improvement is not a reason for deletion. Agent 86 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ezhiki abakharev 09:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially because it now lists towns in other countries etc. Punkmorten 10:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one is so confused about what "Russia" is that they need a disambiguation page. Edison 21:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anything actually LINKS here (and it's not much) it can just as easily be linked to its proper places. There is not reason to disambiguate "Russia," and if people are looking for the ship or what not, it's just as easy to provide a link on the Russia page that re-directs.Ani td 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone reading the page before commenting? There's a ship, three US towns, an asteroid, and a horse. How do you propose to guide people to these without a disambiguation page? Gazpacho 23:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - costs nothing, contains useful information, if it helps even one person then that is a plus for Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 09:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of stuff on there now so it is definitely useful. Keresaspa 13:26, 9 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. Please note that group nominations are strongly discouraged as it over complicates the consensus achievement process. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek and Drew Riker[edit]

Except for The Amazing Race they are not notable. Even the creator thought that. Otherwise, he/she wouldn't have combined the two. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because these contestants aren't notable outside the show either:


  • Delete all They are not notable for anything other than being on this reality show, and previous AfD's have made it clear than reality show contestants are not-notable if the show is the onlything they are known for. TJ Spyke 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chip Arndt-- notable for relationship with Reichen and for gay activism, no opinion on others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.218.5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep all, noted reality contestents. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The essence of evanescence. Edison 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; nearly all reality show winners have their own page; why them? Both articles are stubs, anyway. Ohyeahmormons 21:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Rikers aren't winners. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; reality show winners are fixtures in our popular culture. Not all of them are celebrities in the sense of being a name most people would recognize, but that does not mean they are not known to many millions of people. In Chip Arndt's case, though, he has legitimate celebrity in the gay community and has used that celebrity consistently to raise money for gay causes even though several years have passed since his win on the Amazing Race. He is still able to make a living as a public speaker. --Mileage 00:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Rikers aren't winners. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalkContribs# of Edits 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Rikers, weak delete on Bentley and Holliday, and keep Arndt. The Rikers have no claim to fame other than the fact that they were contestants on a game show. Bentley and Holliday actually won, which may make them notable enough. Arndt has been the subject of "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" per WP:BIO. (The Advocate cover article, for example, and I suspect others.) eaolson 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Rikers, no opinion on the others. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arndt, Weak Keep and Comment on the Riker Twins. That there is one article for the two of them bears no relevance on their notability. People largely known specifically with other people and Twins are often listed in a single article. Very Weak Keep for Freddie and Kendra but mostly because I'm a TAR fan (even thought I didn't much like them). Otto4711 03:27, 10 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 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meef[edit]

This article was deleted twice before as a neologism, and this time, a Google search brings up no relevant hits whatsoever. The article should be deleted and protected. MSJapan 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks like pure nonsense to me at this point. Wickethewok 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article tells us outright, in no less than four separate places, that this secret society is too secret for Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no relevant hits because it is a relativly young organization. The article was written for the first time today and no article has been deleted in the past covering similar content. This content was never removed or labled "neologism". What's the point in deleting it if the content is real. Keep in mind this wasn't written by some teenager..why don't you actually read the whole thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacomonkey (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Well, then, by statement of the article author it's unverifiable and non-notable as per the WP:RS and WP:NN Wikipedia policies. MSJapan 18:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - NN, unverified (and unverifiable), weasel words, selfcontradicting... the list goes on. WegianWarrior 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNeologism.Edison 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable. Go to Facebook.com and look up the global group "meef". It exists, is verifiable and deserves a place on wikipedia for anyone who would like to see it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacomonkey (talk • contribs)

I would suggest that you read the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia, as well as learn how to sign comments. Frankly, your desire to write an article on Meef has gotten you ahead of how to follow WP guidelines. Moreover, you assume that anyone can go and search Facebook, which they can't; they require a login to use the site. If that wasn't bad enough, the entire article is anecdotal, which violates WP:RS. MSJapan 13:53, 9 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 Villa Vizcaya. There were no further comments after the relisting and although it seems an unlikely search term there is no consensus to delete. Questions about the correct article name and merging can be discussed on the talk page. Yomanganitalk 14:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vizcaya (Miami)[edit]

Redundant This is covered at the DAB page for Vizcaya Doc ♬ talk 01:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got an e-mail from the creator (no idea why he sent an e-mail, let alone to me and not the AfD nom):
You have the page about Vizcaya marked for deleteion, and you have no idea about what is happening.
I am attempting to create a page about Vizcaya in Miami.
The user "Deibid" seems to own the references to Vizcaya and he keeps deleting my edits, and seems to think that Vizcaya is ambiguous, when there is no ambiguity at all.
After explaining to him that Vizcaya is the proper name of the museum in Miami, NOT VILLA VIZCAYA AS YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK and explaining to him that Natural Search Results in both Google and Overture result in the majority of searches for Vizcaya in Miami, he seems to think that somehow Vizcaya in Spain has more prominence and has refused to let me build a page for Vizcaya.
Someone a while back built pages regarding "Villa Vizcaya" but this is not the proper or colloquial usage, and he seems to want to include his all important references to Biscay in Spain. Although the root may be traced back to Spain for the name Vizcaya, or that we use the name Biscayne extensively in Miami for parks, streets, and building, seems to mean little to this demigod.
If you reference http://www.vizcayamuseum.org/ , the museum itself does not refer to itself as Villa Vizcaya, rather it refers to it simply as Vizcaya, and I attempted to post pictures of the main gate that shows that since the early 1900's when the museum was built they simply put VIZCAYA on the main entrance. Look at my contribs.
Please advise.
Thanks
MiamiTom --Wafulz 19:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor MiamiTom has been all over the place. He has been blanking talk pages, editing and/or removing other editors remarks on talk pages and creating multiple duplicates of existing articles with huge images of his own. He has made as many as 5 reverts to keep his own idea. At present, if he has not once more reverted, the Vizcaya page is a DAB showing the existing articles which existed long before any of his edits. The museum article has always existed at Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. He has tried to recreate the article under the above title as well as several other places. He does not sign his posts and when I have tried to post links and help on his talk page he blanks either the entire page or my remarks. I am at a loss how to help him. Doc ♬ talk 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I received the same e-mail.) MiamiTom/Miamitom seems sincere, yet unable to grasp that we have processes and why, in particular that Wikipedia articles must have a global viewpoint. I find that Vizcaya (Miami) was a name suggested by an editor of the Biscay article. On his talk page he gives the distinct impression that in his view only Miami search results matter and only Miamians use Wikipedia. (He has even opened a request for assistance.) I think Wikipedia editors were initially patient with him but he is exhausting that patience (even as his patience with Wikipedia editing procedures is exhausted -- if there's any excuse for page-blanking, in this case he seems to be under the impression that Talk pages are some kind of e-mail editor). In the end the question at hand is whether Vizcaya (Miami) needs to exist at all and clearly it does not, since there must not be duplicate articles on the same topic. My vote is unchanged. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that no one will look for Vizcaya (Miami) but if consensus is to have a redirect, it should either go to the DAB page at Vizcaya which includes all options or to have it become another DAB page with links to both articles Villa Vizcaya the villa and home and the museum which has the exact title as the webpage given above Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Again, it seems to me that no one will search for the above title which is why I nominated it for deletion. Doc ♬ talk 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I question why the Villa and Museum have separate articles at all. If the house had a more extensive treatment that would be one thing. The name Villa Vizcaya refers to the entire estate, and I have been there; they are not separate entities. This should be a next step. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 27 September 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, W.marsh 20:19, 6 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 Fourth Dimension Records. I have copied the text of the article to the talk page of the new article for the purposes of the agreed merge. Yomanganitalk 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grim Humour[edit]

Nomination for deletion Defunct fanzine which claims some kind of vague subcultural notability without citing any sources. Only ~180 ghits for Fanzine and grim humour google search. Article created by single purpose account[37], apparently belonging to "Richo", the said editor of the defunct magazine. Bwithh 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am now conditionally concurring with Ac@osr's merge solution - the condition being that independent source referencing is introduced to the Fourth Dimension article Bwithh 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - had there been an article for the parent label Fourth Dimension, I would have recommended a merge as FD has released records by several notable underground artists (Thurston Moore, Merzbow, Simon Wickham-Smith & Richard Youngs, KK Null, The Gerogerigegege, Circle etc...) and FD catalogue numbers were given to the Grim Humour giveaways (which featured Sonic Youth, Ausgang, Portion Control etc...). But I'm not sure if Grim Humour is acceptable solely of itself. Seems like an odd choice given the proprietor's activities... Ac@osr 10:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - having considered the position, I have started an article for Fourth Dimension Records which I feel establishes notability. I would therefore suggest a Merge. Ac@osr 11:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merge solution is fine with me as long as there is some independent source referencing too for Fourth Dimension Records too. Bwithh 15:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the discogs page and an independently compiled discography page which I trust stands as verfiable evidence of the releases that establish notability. Ac@osr 17:16, 10 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 CSD A7. -- Merope Talk 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millerisms[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contested prod. -- Merope Talk 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletisms. Backdooring a nonsense db-bio by naming the article after the antics of your friend is still pretty much a db-bio. Kill it quickly and swiftly. ju66l3r 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above Bwithh 20:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. - Triviaa 21:45, 6 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 1. delete. 2. ??? 3. profit!!! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring jokes on Slashdot[edit]

Pure original research (identifying things as recurring jokes) without any secondary sources (sites other than slashdot). Fundamentally inappropriate for wikipedia. Precedent would be something like List of YTMND fads, which was redirected back to the the main article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see related afds:
  • Delete Unencylopedic content and listcruft Bwithh 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bwithh. Interesting article, but it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. —Whomp (myedits) 21:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To tell the truth, this article isn't quite as bad as I expected it to be, but it's still bad. Many of these aren't exclusive to Slashdot, and quite a few are obscure enough that even longtime Slashdot readers wouldn't recognise them. The most visible running gag of all (using CowboyNeal in the poll answers) isn't covered. Cleanup would be pointless, as collecting other websites' jokes and trivia just isn't a job for an encyclopedia. If anyone feels this is worth documenting, they should do it on Slashdot itself or on their own website. Wikipedia isn't the place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I highly doubt that reliable sources exist for this topic. — TKD::Talk 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Slashdot subculture - most of the content is already there anyways. --- RockMFR 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Slashdot subculture doesn't cite any third-party reliable sources either, and doesn't look to be much better, IMO. — TKD::Talk 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One at a time, one at a time :) --- RockMFR 00:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with the merge proposal. Ultimately, they should probably both be deleted, but at the moment Recurring jokes on Slashdot is a much less awful article than Slashdot subculture is. Merging the better one into the worse one is like tossing a moldy cheesecake onto a festering pile of manure: yes, it might technically make it smell better, but nobody's gonna want to get close enough to take a whiff either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the recurring jokes list is already in the subculture article (almost a direct copy and paste). Merge anything that is not already there, kill the jokes article, and then possibly kill the subculture article. --- RockMFR 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Omg, Slashdot subculture is so incredibly bad... it should be blanked and rebuilt from the ground up under semi-protect. Or better, just delete that too - not convinced there is encyclopedically notable slashdot subculture worthy of own article Bwithh 17:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smaller useless crufty memepile. Opabinia regalis 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OMG Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete /cruft. Eusebeus 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete must be a while since I read slashdot because some of the "jokes" were new. Reasons as stated above: no sources, verifiability and cruftitude. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not verifiable at all. Recury 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astonishingly pointless. Delete and sow the ground with salt. Vizjim 06:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love slashdot but this article really serves no purpose. Nicklob 14:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Delete
2. ????
3. Profit --Isotope23 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unset the deleting admin's "evil" bit. A bunch of original research (imagine a Beowulf cluster of that). Would be a very very cool research topic though, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. (Form a virtual community / Internet culture research group on Wikiversity?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:23, 11 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, but the consensus seems to be it should be brought back here and deleted if the referencing issues are not immediately addressed. Yomanganitalk 00:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable textbooks in statistical mechanics[edit]

This article is either an indiscriminate index (all statistical mechanics textbooks) or original research (deciding which is notable). Wikipedia is not an address book, a phone book, or a book directory, nor is it supposed to be an arbiter of what is notable, isntead relying on others to judge that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom although it seems a shame to lose this list. Could it be transwikied to Wikibooks? --Richard 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: such a type of information would be very useful if maintained by experts. Perhaps stable version will allow to keep such lists. Pavel Vozenilek 23:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: providing a scholarly bibliography is encyclopaedic. Such a bibliography must necessarily be selective. Note further that there are articles throughout WP on "important publications in subject X", and this is encouraged. If Night Gyr has issues with the inclusion of particular titles, or the non-inclusion of other titles, this is a very valid matter for discussion, and the talk page provides an appropriate forum. I believe that, with appropriate discussion, metrics could be established to solidify criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion. Deletion should be reserved for articles which are not valuable and for which there is no likely prospect of improvement. On the contrary, this article is useful; it is on-topic for WP; and IMO concerns raised about inclusion criteria can substantially be addressed. It should remain, and be improved. Jheald 02:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Statistical mechanics, and its presentation, is important and practical; but it is also nuanced and subtle. Perspectives on these details are important: they can lead to new understandings, and gross misunderstandings; they can be really quite deep issues in the philosophy of physics and the history of science; and they can still lead to quite vehement debate (see some of the recent discussion on Talk:Entropy for example!). It is scientifically interesting (and encyclopaedic) to see what were the dominant presentations in their time, and how different presentations have evolved. Hence this list of references. There might be other texts which could be added, but I would submit that, certainly up to 1970, all of the texts on the list deserve inclusion without a hint of POV -- being seen either as the very bible of the subject in their time, or at the very least as one of the lead texts for teaching it. Many of them still are (on both counts). For the titles afer 1970, IMO Penrose and Landsberg deserve inclusion for being very distinctive in their approaches; Ruelle for really opening up a new direction with the rigour of his approach and results. The others are I believe a representative cross-section of the most cited, most prevalent and most recommended mainstream textbooks in leading teaching universities in this field. This could be validated quantitatively with appropriate further investigation. Jheald 03:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(2): One thing the article could perhaps use is sentences for titles to say what makes them notable, and worthy of inclusion. This might substantially resolve Night Gyr's issues with it. Jheald 03:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sentence needs to be a reference to another source, or else we are doing original research. All of the keep votes so far have spoken about the books from their personal experience, and no one has cited a source that identifies these as important works. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the books on the list that I am familiar with are on my A list, and, as mentioned above, as long as it does not become a battleground, I say keep it. PAR 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You bring up an interesting question of WP:NOR for such a list. That is, who says these authors and books are notable? We just kind of grow up with the idea that these authors and books are notable--because these authors and books appear over and over in the bibliographies of the books we use in our work. Isn't that right? I would be surprised if any of the listed books is not referenced and therefore notable in McQuarrie's 2000 Second Edition. Should the WP:RS for the whole list be McQuarrie's 2000 Second Edition? And surely McQuarrie's 2000 Second Edition is notable because it is already in the Second Edition. A book with only one typo so full of mathematical formulas and proofs that sells so well to graduate students eager to find a typo makes it very notable, does it not? The suggestion of a few sentences characterizing each book is a good suggestion. Someone could quote the appropriate sentences from each author's own preface, explaining the author's particular concern and targeted audience. What do you think? --Rednblu 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there some way a sentence or two could be added about each work? While I'd like to see the list kept, and I am glad to see that others want to keep it as well, it's clear that lists are under pressure across WP and even this one may not survive future deletion debates... Just a few comments: (1) There are unreasonably many ISBNs for some works (like Kubo's). (2) It may be that someone will have the time to add pointers to book reviews for these books. That could make the list much more useful. Even a one or two-sentence summary of what some reviewer said could be helpful. (3) Integrating the listed books into a history of statistical mechanics, while a great deal of work, would permanently forestall any criticism of its 'listiness'. EdJohnston 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'd have no problem with this list if we could cite some sort of review that establishes their importance. as it is now, all we have to go on is wikipedians' opinions, which is OR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:02, 9 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 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple finance[edit]

Per WP:OR. Article does not cite reliable sources (books cited are in Italian), and the Time magazine reference is too broad. Google search for "Multiple finance" turns up 825 results, some of which have nothing to do with this topic. Was PRODded before, but the tag was removed by the article's creator. Green451 21:15, 6 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 09:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Dukes and Lincolnshire Pallet Services[edit]

I believe that Philip Dukes is a hoax. Lincolnshire Pallet Services is a real company, but very unlikely to be the multi-million pound business stated here, and I don't believe meets WP:CORP. Both created by Simondukes which may be significant. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From www.ukdata.com:

Company Details - LINCOLNSHIRE PALLET SERVICES LIMITED
Registered No. 01585498
Address: GEORGE STREET
GREAT NORTHERN TERRACE
LINCOLN
LN5 8LG
Type: Private Limited with share capital
Incorporation Date: 11/09/1981
Status: Small unquoted company filing only a modified balance sheet
Last Accounts Filed: 31/12/2005
Last Accounts Analysed: 31/12/2005
  • Accordingly, DELETE. RickReinckens 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This company gets 22 hits on Google, most of which are ads.
    • The article is loaded with POV.
    • Non-notable company and person.
    • Not sourced.
    • If this company is so huge, how come they don't have a website? RickReinckens 07:24, 8 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 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Braden j aaron[edit]

The article may well be factually accurate, and certainly does not qualify for a {{speedy}} tag, but I question whether it is an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it fulfill WP:PORNBIO? Peculiarity: Birth name is given as "Sir". Edward Wakelin 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User:Thewdwboy created this article whose only contribs are to this particular article. Google hits only show one personal site and another escort site where this guy is listed. Delete, as he is not a famous porn star.No IMDB hits for him as well. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 23:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at it, I figure I will go with delete.Edward Wakelin 01:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. JASpencer 18:38, 7 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 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Foster[edit]

This article I feel is non-notable. Julien Foster has achieved nothing more than standing as a candidate in a general election and being a lawyer. Both of these don't really warrant him a page. In additon, the page was created by Julien Foster himself, which does suggest it is merely a vainity page. The last line of the article reads "He is a grandson of Roberto Weiss, a great great nephew of Sir Horace Hector Hearne and a great great nephew of Sadie Bonnell"; as well as this being fairly irrelevant, Julien Foster has created two of these pages himself, and this again makes me think it is a vainity page. If he ever becomes an MP then the page of course should be remade, but I think at the moment he's not notable. Berks105 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable enough because of his political activity and apart from the family references (that should be removed if continuing to be unsourced if the article survives its afd) everything is well sourced, SqueakBox 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this isn't a vote, and rationales are important, that won't count against editors who actually give rationales for deletion. Uncle G 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What utter rubbish! You have no right to dismiss the views of other editors merely because you disagree with them and my viewpoint is equal to yours, of course, see WP:AGF, SqueakBox 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Uncle G means it would be helpful it you said why you think the article should be kept. --Berks105 18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't give a view. You just wrote "Keep", and that was it. You gave no rationale at all. Rationales are important, and bare votes cannot outweigh arguments based upon policies. You've given a rationale now, but it is a fallacious one. You assert that the article is "well sourced". But it isn't actually sourced at all. See what I already wrote at length on the purported sources. It seems unlikely that anyone who has actually read the purported sources would come to the conclusion that this article was "well sourced". Uncle G 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites as references what the article describes as "profiles" of this person. They are not, in fact, any such things. The purported "profile" at The Guardian comprises exactly 1 sentence: "Not currently an MP". The purported "profile" at The Times is in fact the page with the election results for a U.K. parliamentary constituency, and contains exactly the same amount of information about M. Foster as Leyton and Wanstead#Elections does: 1 line in a table giving polling results. The other three cited references are not even remotely about the subject and contain no biographical information whatsoever. (One is a name check in a debate, one is a quotation, and one is a dumped electronic mail message.)

    The article is an autobiography, written by Julien Foster (talk · contribs). The references aren't references at all, and it has clearly been constructed from M. Foster's own firsthand knowledge of xyrself. Searching, the only biographies of this person that I can find are other autobiographies, also supplied directly from the subject, that are word-for-word identical to this one.

    When it comes to the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, the subject does not satisfy any of them anyway. The subject is a barrister, and an election candidate who didn't win. The appearances on radio programmes are clearly on the level of phone-in interviews. Notability is not inheritable, especially from one's grandfather or great-great uncle, and the notability by association is the only thing that the autobiographies have going as even claims of notability. Not that we can actually trust that this person is in fact related to whom xe claims to be related.

    And that is the crux of the problem. There is nothing from which to verify the content of this article, including the claims of being a distant relative of notable people, except for other word-for-word identical autobiographies that the subject has had published elsewhere, in addition to submitting to Wikipedia. (The other autobiographies don't even mention the distant relatives, moreover.) Wikipedia:Autobiography#The_problem_with_autobiographies explains the problems with that. The subject is non-notable, and nothing in the article is verifiable except for the information that we already have in Leyton and Wanstead#Elections. That row in a table, in that article, is exactly how much coverage of this person that Wikipedia should have. Delete. Uncle G 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Uncle G insofar as it is unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the applicable policies and guidelines cited above. Eluchil404 08:36, 11 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 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Bennett[edit]

PROD removed. Manifestly an elaborate but total hoax: no relevant Google hits, no listing in AMG, no listing with RIAA, for a performer who has supposedly sold 35 million records. All the album and song wikilinks are fake (they point at generic Wikipedia articles or other artists' works). Very clever, but completely false. Delete. MCB 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy if possible Elaborate indeed. Hoax indeed. That's such obvious garbage that I'm amazed the article has existed for so long. I can't think of a good word for this article besides "ludicrous". -- Kicking222 22:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible Per Nom, is a hoax, include de redirect from Nicole bennett --VirtualDelight 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible Per nom., clear hoax Malpertuis 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible as hoax. According to various different prior versions of this article, the subject has been married either to Andy Roddick, Elton John, Deuce Bigalow, or George Bush. I'm not sure which George Bush, though. --Metropolitan90 08:28, 7 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 - Yomanganitalk 22:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seiklus[edit]

non-notable amatuer computer game made with a computer game construction kit Luvcraft 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is complete bullshit! KEEP! --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 09:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's located all over the web. By your standards, unless it's made by a large company, it's not notable. Keep.--Kafeithekeaton 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • THIS GAME PWNS U AND ALL OF UR FAMILY MEMBERS Tjg92 05:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seiklus has appeared on numerous independent game sites and recieved coverage in two printed magazines; that it was created with a Game Creation System should have no bearing on either quality or notability (especially in light of greater developer focus on user-created content). Games such as Doukutsu Monogatari, Recca and TUMIKI Fighters have articles on English Wikipedia—these articles seem free of such dispute as this article suffers...Yet those games have recieved less English-sepaking press than seiklus. Reconcile previous reasoning used there and you will have a proper answer. Thanks. --E. Megas 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seiklus is not only a significant game, it's one of the most widely-acclaimed and recognized "indie" games in years. I know I've personally referenced it (directly or indirectly) in a number of articles for a variety of publicaions, including Next-Gen.biz and GamaSutra, as one of the most elegant recent game designs for any platform. It's a common basis for discussion and comparison on at least two major Internet communites I'm aware of, dealing at least in part with design analysis and indie game development. For its part, it's an incredibly influential little game. --Aderack 10:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please edit the article to add this information. It's important to establish notability in the article, not just here. 68.105.109.51 21:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's one, in passing. I've not kept a strict record in anticipation for Wikipedia drama. I'll link what I can find offhand, in a moment.--Aderack 07:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few that thirty seconds of Googling bring up. Everyone else, feel free to add links as you come across them.--Aderack 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, this isn't a helpful way to conduct business. The constructive way to phrase the above is to say "comment: unless you add some references to show why this game is so noteworthy, it's probably fodder for deletion -- so you might want to get busy with that". No need to be draconian.--Aderack 08:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep From WP:N: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources." The article itself does lack these references, however, they do exist as demonstrated by prior comments. There is no reason to delete the article, as all it needs is to be updated. Inmatarian 01:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, from WP:WEB, "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria", #3, "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 criteria is met with the External Links to it's own pages on MobyGames and Home of the Underdogs. Inmatarian 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez... There are less notable platformers than this on Wikipedia. I'd say pick on them, but they also deserve to be on here. Most of them, at least. -Sergio
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was copyright violation - AfD moot. Thryduulf 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperactive Children's Support Group[edit]

I'd put this up for speedy delete, but its been on Wikipedia for over a year. Not sure if there is a reason for that, or if it just slipped through the cracks, but it looks like an ad to me. --*Kat* 22:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a copyright violation from the official website - I've listed it on today's copyright problems page. Thryduulf 10:24, 10 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, but someone please expand this thing, please. It's a CSD A3 speedy as it stands. Titoxd(?!?) 20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Papacy[edit]

Essay, appears to be original research, POV. Topic is not worthy of its own article. Some info might be moved to Pope if there is anything significant here. Heimstern Läufer 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, some kind of weird school essay. Gazpacho 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewritten version is a substub that doesn't seem worth keeping. Gazpacho 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and soapbox (and yes, it reads like a short school assignment) -Markeer 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Renaissance Popes". 20,900 hits for them. JASpencer 17:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, but that doesn't mean we need a seperate article for the Papacy in the Renaissance. I saw the rewrite, and it still seems larely POV and also now contains very little content and next to no context. I still support deletion. Heimstern Läufer 18:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, the history of the Papacy as an institution in this time period certainly merits an article, and the now-stubbed article is a good place to start. Sandstein 20:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough info to justify having it as an article. Merge with Popes.Edison 21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopeless drivel before it was emptied. Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Definitely an encyclopedic topic. Danny 23:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A distinct period in the papacy, and therefore proper for separate treatment. Gabrielthursday 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Papacy during the Renaissance is a unique period unto its own. I thought a stub article would be better than nothing. Feel free to delete it if need be. Daves82
  • Keep, as per Gabrielthursday. In addition, you never know who you might need to put in a good word with St. Peter ... Noroton 04:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ... [additional comment] ... like the victims of some of these popes.Noroton 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an encyclopedic topic that I hope is properly developped. A topic of importance should not be prejudiced by the drivel in its history. Themindset 04:44, 11 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 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoon[edit]

Originally prodded under WP:NFT, author added documentation of the concept and deprodded. I am still less than convinced of its notability, as it seems to be documented on one minor website that collects photos of this pose. At the very least, the article needs a substantial rewrite. Heimstern Läufer 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, please...as soon as possible. I'd like to hear the authors explanation of how this is an "incomplete description of historical significance". What historical significance exactly? If it isn't {db-nonsense}, it should be {db-group}. --Onorem 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. WP:NFT, WP:BOLLOCKS, neologism, unremarkable people/groups, non-notable website, ... Thryduulf 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly BJAODN it. "Translated into several other languages..." rofl. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 00:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original prodder. -- Merope Talk 06:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteVanity, OR, not notable.Edison 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, reasonable description of well known phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.242.41 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP mistaken for Uncyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, I AM the Author of original article "Phoon"
Look, I am enthusiastic about learning how to produce a viable article. Admittedly I do not fully understand, but in this case I wish to provide an excellent definition/article. Though the site (www.phoons.com) is indeed "minor" it was once a Yahoo! Pick of the Week, has been written up in international newspapers, magazines, etc. and has attracted viewers from all over the world.
Significantly a simple image search on search engines reveals people posting this pose and referring to it as a phoon. There ought to be a location where people can get an explanation as to the origins of the naming of the pose. I don't think many of the people using the term even understand why they are calling it that. As to "multiple languages" eliciting an "ROFL" -- which seems inappropriate -- Volunteers from several countries have put in significant hours of their own time making the site accessible to others. It is not a commercial site, is maintained solely by its creator, and grows by submissions from others, like the Mirror Project, or others.
How does this differ from WP:NFT? This word "stuck." All words are invented. If you can list an article on the uncertain origins of the word shit which garners increasing worldwide use and understanding, adding Phoon with an absolutely certain and verfiable origin (and not WP:BOLLOCKS as erroneously asserted above), and widespread use should not be an issue. --David R. Darrrow drdarrow — Drdarrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Guilty as charged, (so far)... However, I am very interested in contributing to other articles. I think Wiki is a fascinating tool and phenomenon, and would enjoy being an ongoing contributor. Hang in there with me.
  • Do Not delete [vote struck, has already voted above] [vote unstruck by user:drdarrow because user's brother (John Darrow) wrote the following paragraphs] [vote restruck: If your brother wants to "vote" he can create his own account] -- David wrote the above. Why doesn't someone contact one of us, instead of this silliness? This is a legtimate article worthy of Wiki, and we would both (John and David) appreciate your HELP in building a solid, worthy article instead of a cursory reading and spontaneous rejection.--drdarrow 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdarrow (talk • contribs) <--was written by John Darrow, edited for links by David. John has been notified to create his own account and sign his contributions, noting his vote has been "re-struck." --drdarrow 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worth your considering? ...Regarding "I am still less than convinced of its notability, as it seems to be documented on one minor website that collects photos of this pose," can't the same be said about "geocaching"? It's fully described on its own website, so "why mention it in a wiki page?" While geocaching is a far greater phenomenon, still, not everyone has heard about it. It is, likewise, a made-up word. Yet, it is wiki-worthy as a current phenomenon.
  • I'm the author of the phoons.com site; my brother initiated the wiki page that started this discussion; that was his own choice. He noted I might want to chime in with additional thoughts. My guess is that the proposed deletions here have more to do with those individuals disliking and wanting to distance themselves from the idea of phooning. That's completely fair to dislike phooning. However, I'm thinking that disliking some phenomenon is not reason to delete it from the wiki. (I don't get why there are wiki pages dedicated to TV cartoons for elementary school kids, for example, but who am I to say it shouldn't be there?)
  • Just two days ago, a guy named Zack wrote to me out of the blue and ask why "Phoon" was not in the wiki. Adults are interested in this topic, too.
  • By the way, to get a sense of how "phooning" has crept around the world, search Flickr for the tag 'phoon' or 'phooning'. Search blogsearch.google.com for phoon, phoons, phooned, and phooning.
  • Search Google Images category.
  • An argument was made that there is a minor website collecting photos of the poses. Yet if you scan the 'net as I suggested, you'll find that it is the primary collection, while others maintain their own collections (some large, one in Norway, one in Italy, and others small (individual Flickr accounts)).
  • Lastly, I recommend visiting phoons.com and selecting any picture AND observing the category names at the bottom of the picture page. Follow a category of interest and I think you will understand why other viewers have been drawn in and why the word 'phoon' now sticks in their head...and why Phoon is thus worth considering as viable.
John Darrow 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (my apologies for bumbling with wiki tags...I'm scrambling to learn, tho!)[reply]
  • Delete Even if some editors, including the original author, like the sound of the word, it is still a wholly non-notable and nonsensical neologism.--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Anthony.bradbury. Seems to be a neologism, and not necessarily the best term for that pose. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is a neogolism, but whether it is a coined term, one that few if any of the comments/voters above have ever heard, is not inconsequential. In the minds of many (see links in John Darrow's paragraphs above) it is a word describing the specific pose. The purpose, depite A Rubin's objection, is not to give a name to the pose, rather to give a definition and origin of the word/sound which has, internationally, attached itself to that pose. It is not the claim of the author or his brother that the pose was invented by him, rather that the word was, and has a noteworthy origin, and that this resource recognizes it. Argument: Kleenex did not invent the facial tissue, but because of advertising and brand recognition has in the minds of most English-speaking people become the word for facial tissue. --drdarrow 22:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Phoon appears to be well-known enough to have its own Wiki Page. I find the anti-Phoon sentiments on the previous comments to be curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I find this whole phooning business to be entertaining, and I will probably try out the pose for my next photoshoot... but there is no verifiable notability in the article. Please find references to significant publications discussing phooning and include them as inline citations within the article and voila, you will have yourself a wikipedia article. Otherwise, it is just something you made up at school one day. Themindset 04:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.phoons.com/o/dallasnews.pdf#search=%22dallas%20newspaper%20phooning%22

The Dallas Morning News is a world-class reputable newspaper that did a story about Phooning in the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk • contribs)

    • Disagree. The article appears to be about the brothers, and the "phenomenon" is secondary. Still a neologism, and still not appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:27, 12 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 09:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Schools (band)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC:

  • No charted hits in any countries.
  • Not certified gold in any country.
  • No assertion of a national or international tour.
    • Comment: I have added a reference to an international tour. Now it does qualify within WP:MUSIC. Halo 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has only released one album.
  • No major media sources.
  • Members are not notable enough independently to justify the band's notability by association This one claim is not convincing enough.
    • Possible exception being Walter Schreifels, but WP:MUSIC is tentative on this point, stating that this often merits a redirect.
    • Comment: I'd say Samuel Siegler is just as notable, being part of Glassjaw, Nightmare of You and CIV. Halo 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No claim of representativeness of a style or scene.
  • No major music awards.
  • No apparent participation in music competitions.
  • No inclusion in other notable media.
  • No claim to rotation in any radio networks.
  • No claim to being the subject of any radio show.

Most importantly, though: none of the supposed assertions of notability have sources. This appears to me to be a well written vanity article, abundantly wikilinked to give the impression of legitimacy and notability. It should be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy keep - I try to be less bitchy these days about people who don't know anything about music, but c'mon, the All Music Guide link is provided in the article, and that verifies everything in the article. If I weren't such a Girl Scout now in the Wikipedia community, my wrists still stinging from the admonishments of those who don't enjoy my "rogue admin" activities, I would have closed this as a bad faith nomination. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't assert anything notable, however. What you say is false, anyhow. None of the things that actually look like plausible assertions of notability (the ones I put a {{fact}} by, to be clear) aren't there in the reference. This seems like a kneejerk remark to a thoughtful nomination. Please don't say "speedy" keep and imply this nomination is made in bad faith; it's frankly insulting. Dmcdevit·t 00:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is insulting is waste-of-time AfDs like this by people who don't know anything about music. PT (s-s-s-s) 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Insults are insulting. You shouldn't be insulted by a calm suggestion and discussion. I'm quite dismayed that you then chose to look through my contributions and deprod thre articles I just tagged seemingly indiscrimately, without giving a rationale or fixing the problem, even deprodding an article that's written like clear vanity: "One faithful night of partying at the Sierzega household would provide the change they were looking for...A dear friend was given a SUPERB nickname, P.T..the rest is history...their memory is still alive and well in the hearts of the faithful". I just met you, but I'm already tired of your incivility and disrespectfulness. Nobody, least of all me, is going to get really worked up over the result of this one AfD, but this is an encyclopedia, and you really need to start acting with the maturity that implies. Dmcdevit·t 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Notable well known band /extremely notable/ in their field. The fact they're noted as a supergroup consisting of members from other big bands didn't ring any bells for you that they might be notable? A poor article doesn't mean it should be deleted, just improved. Halo 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also appreciate your reasoning why you've prodded a whole bunch of related articles. Why are you doing this when it seems you don't know the subject matter at all? Halo 00:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, which page do you think this article should be redirected to? It is clearly not independently notable, as that is the only assertion of notability mentioned, and the suggested remedy for those bands is to create an article, not a redirect. Dmcdevit·t 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the article doesn't establish that, that's a problem with the article not a reason for deletion. Also see WP:MUSIC: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; - members of other hardcore bands. I'd also appreciate to know why you're prodding articles of well known, established bands like The Movielife and Texas Is The Reason. These aren't small obscure bands as a simple Google search will tell you. Halo 00:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is exactly the clause I was referring to myself, though you've taken it out of context. It finishes "it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." In any case, the other prods I made were because they lacked sources and assertions of notability, but that's off-topic. I'm unhappy they were deprodded without an effort to fix the problems, but this case is different: it appears to not merit inclusion. Dmcdevit·t 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's notable because there are two members that have been in major bands - Rival Schools wasn't one person's a side project. Either way, I've made it pass WP:MUSIC. It took me one Google search but it's all moot now. Halo 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC (see the long list that Dmc compiled). Daniel.Bryant 01:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it's a long list doesn't make it correct. They meet WP:MUSIC, easily. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly seems notable enough to be in Wikipedia. - Lex 03:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - worst case of WP:OSTRICH for some months. Ac@osr 10:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSorry, Don't see the notability."short-lived post-hardcore band"Edison 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try looking at the article, the first paragraph even. PT (s-s-s-s) 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Walter Schreifels. Sorry, but these assertions of notability are tenuous. It appears to have notable members, but I don't see anything that justifies the band itself having it own article; however, I also don't see why it shouldn't be content in the Schreifels article as a notable aspect of his career, with mentions of the group perfectly appropriate in the articles of other notable personnel connected with the project. unimportant venting: 1) Being rude is neither constructive nor appealing. 2) WP:OSTRICH does not apply when the article's claims are tenuous, and while I do think editors should attempt research before nomming articles for deletion, it is perfectly understandable that something worthy of an article does not always come across as such based on the article's content and resources found at the time of the nom. This appears perfectly good faith to me. GassyGuy 09:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's very difficult to establish notability of a short-lived, well known, influential band. Influence generally stuggles to get references, and a simple Google search won't find their popularity due to the game. Their CDs are sold all over the place though, and they're well known. The only way I could possibly establish their relative influence and popularity that is point out their Last.FM[38] fans (different people playing one of their songs) are much higher compared to similar bands like Gorilla Biscuits[39], Rites of Spring[40], Quicksand[41], Planes Mistaken For Stars[42], Million Dead [43] and several other large bands from the same genre, and Rival Schools only have one album. They're a popular band. This band isn't known as Walter Schreifels's side project, it's probably his best known band, so it's inaccurate to redirect there. Halo 10:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can be his best known band and still be covered in his article. I'm not sure why that would be a reason not to merge it. I trust you that they're influential, but I'm trying to work within WP:MUSIC, and the sources I've looked at just don't have any content that properly assert that this needs to remain as is. If you think Schreifels is a bad place to house the info, please suggest a better one. GassyGuy 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because people who look for information on Rival Schools are looking for the band, not a person in the band. There /is/ no appropriate place to merge it too, and that WP:MUSIC rule is intended for small obscure side-projects and early bands that appear before a band gets big but aren't as notable as the major band, which this _isn't_, particularly as the band is more well known than the person. Also, the article now meets WP:MUSIC as they internationally toured, it contains at least two notable members, and I'm also trying to show it has become one of the most prominent examples of the scene through Last.FM. I'm really struggling on show to show it is more well known, aside from the fact that I knew of the band before Googling and they are one of the best known bands in the scene, even if they were shortlived. Halo 10:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I'm trying to say is that, if you merge the band to the Schreifels article, or elsewhere, people get the same information, regardless of where it is housed. I'm not trying to call this a Schreifels side project, but at the same time, I remain unconvinced that it merits a standalone article and am simply trying to find a decent place to house the information contained. As it stands it appears this is heading towards a keep anyway, but, to me, it really doesn't demonstrate it terribly well and it doesn't seem like there's a good way for it to do so. GassyGuy 10:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, a highly notable band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails criteria at WP:BAND. WP is not a directory, so being listed in AMG is not a ticket to notability. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It does easily pass WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO is for people. Also, it does meet the catagory of being mentioned in several notable music publications, newspapers and websites, also have performed internationally. This band EASILY meets the criteria - in four seperate categories (notable members, notable in their scene, international touring and published in several varifiable publications) or am I missing something? Halo 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • {{sofixit}} -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • YOU'RE the one unhappy with it. YOU fix it. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact an article is rubbish isn't a good reason for deletion - that means it deserves a {{cleanup}} tag, because it isn't beyond salvation, and I'm not going to waste my time rewriting a page that might get deleted. I'm honestly completely stunned that people don't know the band and that this AFD is happening at all and the band /easily/ meets WP:MUSIC (or WP:BAND or whatever you want to call it) Halo 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the band is made up of several known musicians, so the article should stay. (I just found their United By Fate CD, and it sounds great!) 201.143.225.20 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... oops, the keep above (201.143.225.20) was done by me. Gwargh. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Several notable members means it's a keep, per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Themindset 04:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As has been said, this band toured internationally, got some airtime on television, and has notable members. - Plasticbadge 23:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Highly notable band in their own scene. Leobarudi 09:37, 14 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 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bib-it[edit]

Free software, no evidence of notability. --Peta 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 15:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only 500 people have ever downloaded it, but continue to include a reference to it on the BibTeX page. --Matthew 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no claim of notability made. Themindset 04:14, 11 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. Yanksox 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurabib[edit]

Free sotware, no evidence of notability. --Peta 23:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Individual LaTeX package? Delete, unless we get to make articles about babel, url/hyperref and especially natbib... which doesn't seem likely! We don't really need to document the entire CTAN, and I don't think this thing would ever grow beyond what it is now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Den fjättrade ankan 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note: This user is also the primary author of the article.) Pardon me for being curious, but what in your opinion would be the reason to keep this article? I fail to see how this qualifies under WP:SOFTWARE, aside of "included in a major operating system distribution" (I type in "locate jurabib.sty" in my Debian machine and bang, there it is), but this is not a separate package with a high rank, and it's just an infinitesimal part of a huge package called tetex-extra, and teTeX has an article (well, at least a redirect). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability made. Themindset 04:14, 11 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 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TtH[edit]

Free software, no evidence of notability. --Peta 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as suggested. Gazpacho 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a one-sentence article with no claim of notability whatsoever. Themindset 04:13, 11 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 AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick C. Roecker Jr.[edit]

nn military bio, violates WP:VAIN by article's creator, article title gets 10 hits, "Fred Roecker" gets around 400 [44] Tony fanta 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. - clear vanity article with no supporting sources for notability Malpertuis 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Nobunaga24 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:42, 7 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. AdamBiswanger1 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Tribal Style Belly Dance[edit]

Encyclopedia articicle or an ad? No independent verifiaction of the importance of this "movement" --Peta 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain what level of proof you require, or even what your meaning/definition is. So first I ask for a clarification, and more details about your concerns with the article. It is not an ad; this movement represents a large number of styles and concepts within the overall belly dance world, thus the separate article. For example, likely the best-known belly dancer (as opposed to singer-who-dances, like Shakira or Natasha Atlas) in America, at this point, is a Tribal style dancer named Rachel Brice. But this is sort of like saying the most important gospel singer of the last 30 years is the Reverend James Cleveland; it may be true, and important enough for an entry, but the importance is only noted within that genre, and is mostly indirect outside of it.I'm happy to answer in in-depth questions about ATS and Tribal, as best as I can. Woodrow, known to some as Asim 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is a notable form of bellydance. It sounds like an ad because its wirtten very poorly but it is notable, and has had a huge impact on the world of bellydance since its inception. It is the other major form of the dance proacticed around the world besides the traditional Egyptian. Hold on and I'll cite all the books I have about it. pschemp | talk 03:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources - Verifies its importance and existence.[45],Section about it in here (note lady on front is dressed in ATS style)[46],Article about it here verifying it is one of the three main styles in the US, [47] another here[48], additionally there are 5,900,000 google hits for American tribal bellydance and oodles of sites of groups that perfom this, I mean, too many to count. The nomination is silly, especially since it took me all of 5 minutes to find this. Anyone who is bellydancer could tell you this in their sleep. pschemp | talk 03:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting article, but I don't see any references to verify notability other than websites of people promoting the art. Has there been no reporting in any newspaper or magazine of general circulation? Find something to objectively document the importance to those other than the performers.Edison 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the book references I reported above. Also note that Shira, whose article cites it as one of the three main forms, is not a practioner of ATS, rather she does the Restaurant Caberet style, and hence is objective. But goodness you people are lazy, so here: "1987 A new form of belly dance, known as American Tribal, is presented by Carolena Nericcio and her troupe, Fat Chance Belly Dance, and soon spreads around the world." [49] "Dancers will perform different traditional forms of dancing including American tribal style and gypsy." [50] and "Even today, there are a range of styles, including American tribal, Egyptian cabaret, folkloric and gypsy." [51] If the dancers don't know what's important, who does? [52] and last "American Belly Dance basically comes in two different styles Cabaret and American Tribal." [53] pschemp | talk 00:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficient notability established per pschemp. Keep ++Lar: t/c 07:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article describes Tribal bellydance, a very exciting and innovative movement within the dance community. The article refers to Jamila, one of the originators of this movement. Jamila's daughter Suhaila is a quite famous dancer in many dance spectra, she has appeared on several American television series, including "Fame," "Max Headroom," and an ABC pilot entitled "Harem," in addition to starring in numerous commercials. http://www.suhaila.com/Pages/Biography.htm Suhaila's style is one of many emerging styles of bellydance that include several famous dancers who have developed new dance artforms, e.g., Jill Parker of UltraGypsy, Rachel Brice of the Indigo, Carolena of FatChanceBellydance, and many, many more. Any of the million or more bellydancers practicing the art could tell you about Tribal Style Bellydance movement in the US. THis is important information, and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.116.175 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep "For example, likely the best-known belly dancer...in America, at this point, is a Tribal style dancer named Rachel Brice" the article about whom was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Brice), as well as the Bellydance Superstars artcle (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bellydance_Superstars). Jon Silpayamanant 21:36, 9 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_6&oldid=1081097689"