Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 10

< September 9	September 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical feasts[edit]

Essay/sermon. WP:NOT for essays. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research--TBCTaLk?!? 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. (I have moved the article to a more sensible title. -- RHaworth 06:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegaDark 08:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, no encyclopaedic content (yeah, I hate that argument, but in this case it's true), original research/commentary. — NM Chico24 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this (or something very similar) has previously been deleted as FEASTS OF THE LORD (AfD discussion). Lankiveil 11:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Good eye - Is there an admin that take a peek at the previously deleted article? If it's the same as this article, then this one is speediable. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's close. I don't speak for other administrators but for me it isn't quite close enough. Although the two articles have the same strong bias towards a particular religion, and both cover the same set of topics, the text is not identical. The deleted article addresses the reader several times via the first person plural whereas this one does not, for example. This article mentions Judaism whereas the deleted article does not, for another example.
    Both are clear attempts at a mis-use of Wikipedia for publishing sermons, contrary to our Wikipedia is not a soapbox policy, however. Uncle G 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, we'll let the AfD run its course. Thanks for checking! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 16:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. —Khoikhoi 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is the AfD page called "How to sumit article"? Confusing Manifestation 01:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was the original name of the article before it was moved. — NM Chico24 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preachy ReverendG 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaw drop[edit]

a cliff face. No independent confirmation that the name is anything other than one person's nickname (the article is more than 50% vanity, too). Googling "Jaw drop"+cliff+"British Columbia" returns 42 unique non-wiki hits. And 42 of those 42 are not about this cliff face. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Joshua Bender is notable, but the cliffs he attempts are not. Also, only 12 Google results, few which are relevant.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Aplomado ^talk 01:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I saw this one on the dead-end pages list and thought it was a good candidate for deletion then. Vanity for sure. zephyr2k 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is sipmly non-notable. —Khoikhoi 05:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 07:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lankiveil 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply non notable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor local landmarks (which most climbing cliffs count as) normally belong merged into the locale's article. Original author no longer active, and no indication of where this is near (for merging). LinaMishima 12:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ergative rlt 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a vanity Benon 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
isn't there some kind of expression to redirect this to? Until then, delete RN 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and unverifiable. -- Whpq 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -AMK152 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless ReverendG 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable geographic neologism. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobby Hop[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]}Protologism. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Based on the information in the article, this doesn't even rate a dictionary definition. My Alt Account 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, a neologism that the article admits was created in the "summer of 2006"--TBCTaLk?!? 00:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom TGreenburg
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up in school one day. Aplomado ^talk 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 05:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 07:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lankiveil 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm feeling dirty for managing to do this, but if you limit it to music and remove forums and shops, 1-6 of 11 results. No links to this article from others. The term may deserve a mention in passing one day at hip hop and related articles, though. LinaMishima 12:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deletewikipedia is not for things made up in school one day fits perfectly to this Benon 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -AMK152 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search came up with a toy called a "hobby hop" that kids sit on and bounce, as well as a fair number of webcam sites. I'm not sure I want to know... Robert A.West (Talk) 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom. --Gray Porpoise 23:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anthony5429 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, for now; I see no problem with it being recreated iff it becomes successful. DS 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robo basho[edit]

Delete. Subject does not meet WP:SOFT, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Only 62 Google hits, with 15 unique. ^{[Check Google hits]} Prod removed by author. ... discospinster _talk 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crystal ball, raising the usual cascade of concerns about WP:V and WP:N. My Alt Account 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL BALL, WP:SOFT, and WP:V. --TBCTaLk?!? 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Robo Basho(TM) is an upcoming arcade game created in Huntington Woods resident Joseph M. Johnson's garage..." Well, at least they're up-front about being non-notable. Delete. Aplomado ^talk 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete umm, k. Danny Lilithborne 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Does not meet WP:SOFTWARE. However, allow me to explain the reasons why I had the opinion of weak delete. Firstly, one must take note that the above criteria is currently a propsed Wikipedia guideline. The criteria here is not yet official. Secondly, in this webpage, it is stated that the software in question would be presented around the exhibition scene of AMOA and FunExpo, which admittedly, I am not sure of their notablility. Thirdly, this article meets WP:V barely, which is an official policy of Wikipedia, thus presenting a strong case here for inclusion. However, this in itself is not sufficient condition for an article to be included here. The key statement to be considered here for this article is WP:CRYSTAL BALL. It does not meet WP:NN as well. Thus, considering all sides of the argument here, this article should be deleted. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't really thought this one through yet, but does WP:SOFTWARE really apply? If you watch the news video that's linked from the page, it's not really software. It's a game that involves real robots. Sure there's software involved, but it seams to me that there's a lot more to the product. Right now, WP:CRYSTAL BALL seems to apply more than anything, but for some reason I feel awkard citing that as my main reason. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, but only per the crystal ball policy. --Dennis The TIger 04:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need to give it more time. —Khoikhoi 05:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 07:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn unreleased game. Lankiveil 11:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per crystal ball. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although it only gets 20 hits on google web, it's verifiable and they are trying to get known, so it's a real shame that they haven't had any real external coverage by a news company. Notability may be a guideline, but an exciting commercial concept should be expected to at least have some covered press releases. LinaMishima 12:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kids Next Door Two-by-Four Technology[edit]

Fancruft, listcruft. Djcartwright 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, shouldn't List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door be nominated as well?--TBCTaLk?!? 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, there's an enormous category of this cruft, which I only recognized after tagging this. I just tagged the whole category. Djcartwright 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom; fancruft--TBCTaLk?!? 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fancruft. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door as well. Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruftalicious, also delete the article Pavel Vozenilek mentioned. Danny Lilithborne 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 07:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Th ε Halo ^Θ 10:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 11:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep verifiable as being in the series, good use of a list rather than seperate stubs, appropriate tone, clear definition as to the content, aspect of a notable production. Not excessive, unlike true fancruft. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, remember. LinaMishima 12:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You've got to be kidding. Shadow1 12:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some one appears to have put a lot of work into this. Maybe it would be a better idea to redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door in case some one wants to grab this for a TV wiki? - BalthCat 12:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I had in mind. There's no need to keep it here, but if there's another appropriate wiki, then it really ought to be moved.
Keep. I'm going to have to agree with Lina. The information is concise, well presented, sourced (if not in a preferrable style), and some items are used in as many as as twenty episodes. Above all, it also seems very harmless. It's true, Wikipedia *isn't* paper. As long as it's well done and out of the way of the main articles (so as not to overwhelm), why list a handful of examples of common 2x4 Tech when we can show all the common devices? I just don't see the value in deleting all this work. - BalthCat 13:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Consise accumlation of one of the most distinctive features of the show. I have made occassional passing references in my courses to the vision of technology presented on KND, and this would actually be a good reference to that end. Jdclevenger 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft with a capital C. --kingboyk 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia has no need for any "List of merely incidental objects in fictional series." That said, if some other project does want this, I'd be happy to undelete and help them out with a transwiki. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We allow similar lists for Star Wars and Star Trek related material. Seano1 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Garrett^Talk 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One one hand, Star Wars and Star Trek have much more cultural relevance than this cartoon. On the other hand, just because there exist similar pages for them, doesn't mean that everything that can be listed, should be. Djcartwright 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Some other series have similar pages and it is not too badly presented -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A black stain on Wikipedia.UberCryxic 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a different approach the editors could take then this? Just a pure list of obscure things in a kids show doesn't seem like the best one... RN 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep its a big part of the TV series. Perhaps a bit of clean-up too. -AMK152 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a big part of the TV series, but the TV series is not 'that' significant in and of itself. The TV series may deserve mention in the Wikipedia because it exists on a major network for a number of years, but there is really no need to explore it in such depth here. There must be a TV- or Cartoon-related wiki where this kind of information would be more at home. Djcartwright 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps move it to Cartoons Wiki? -AMK152 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinaMishima. It's an important part of the show, and while it could use cleanup, it doesn't need to be deleted. Wiki is not paper. BryanG^(talk) 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly named ReverendG 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly egregious fan/listcruft with absurdly detailed unencyclopedic content. My Alt Account 03:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:FICT. Kappa 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information with no explanation of encyclopedic value. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! Garrett^Talk 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C.R.U.F.T (Clearly Removable Unencyclopedic Fan Trivia) Robert A.West (Talk) 04:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinaMishima. - TexasAndroid 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a verifiaed, cited and annotated list of non-indiscriminate information. Although the formatting has to be overhauled, I can not find this list to be egregious enough to be excluded from Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That it can be demonstrated as true does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia.Djcartwright 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To what reliable source is it sourced? Right now, all I see is Bird written sourced to "I watched a bird." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Verifiability is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for inclusion. If kept, the primary source (i.e. DVD's of the episodes) would probably suffice for non-controversial information such as a pure listing. Commentary (such as what was being parodied) would require a source or be original research. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  And if it's nothing but parroting pieces of story of a fictional work, it fails Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if there is some sort of TV wiki out there. Recury 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indrian 15:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you have to delete this, why not delete everything on Template:KND while you're at it. If you're going to be so anti-KND, then just go delete EVERYTHING! User:Numbuh3.14 (Talk to me) 03: 23, 13 September 2006
  - Don't turn this around to be a personal attack on my part (nominator). I have no feelings for or against the show; I just don't think this article is the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia that attempts to take itself seriously. Too much detail into a relatively trivial subject for any academic purpose. Djcartwright 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I wonder whether the negative impact of this article on Wikipedia as a whole is worth the effort expended to take it down, the effort of those who believe it should remain to defend it, and the possibility that removing it may reduce the pool of willing volunteers. *Some one* put work into this. - BalthCat 04:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: Degree of effort is not a criterion for AFD, nor is the potential for hurt feelings. The question is what the dividing line is between an encyclopedic article and a trivia list, and where this particular article lies in relation to it. Reasonable people may differ about such things -- that is what AFD is here to hash out. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, or even deleted, by others, do not submit it. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor niggle: Is the term "Two-by-four technology" actually used on the show? If not, that would seem to call for a retitling. Major point: Cruft cruft cruft cruft cruft cruft. FAR FAR too much detail. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per My Alt Account (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 for those wanting to merge, let me point out that the only stuff we could merge that would be relevant to Mere Christianity are a couple of excerpts from the book (and there is one already there). As for keeping the "historical context" section: that really doesn't make any sense at all in the Mere Christianity article: that isn't an article about this term. Mango juice^talk 14:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe (Spiritual Life)[edit]

POV-pushing essay presenting theological speculation as fact, based on a single book pushing the theological opinions of a Christian apologist; making highly dubious claims about the Greek language with no reliable reference. The central claim that "Zoe" had a special "spiritual" meaning in Ancient Greek is quite probably simply wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge part of the article to Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, a notable British author, but delete the "Historical context" section which seems to be original research.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mere Christianity per TBC, but keep "historical context" if someone with a knowledge of Greek can verify. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Michael 07:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unless the term "Zoe" is notable in and of itself (and it doesn't appear to be), it shouldn't have its own article. Lankiveil 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge as per above, and expand description on Zoe disambiguation page. LinaMishima 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's original research, the C.S. Lewis quotes need to go, not be merged, there's no evidence that zoe means "spiritual" life. The Greeks used the word "pneuma" for spirit. This stuff sounds way too New Age. "Spiritual" means relating to the supernatural, not relating to life. Also, this is the root word for zoology, the study of animal life. Yes, I know Greek, yes, I've read the NT in Greek. If anyone tries to merge this obvious garbage, I'll erase it as a service to Wikipedia. Billy Blythe 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you saying I'm not notable? :) User:Zoe|(talk) 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly not notable, no need for an AfD for that :( LinaMishima 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - linguistically dubious OR. Ergative rlt 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence the Septuagint (LXX), uses the Greek word zoe as the word for "life" in the Book of Genesis along with a derivative of the same word to explain that man "became spiritually alive in his behavioral life-function of the soul."(Genesis 2:7) is unsourced; and reads like somebody's theological claim (perhaps Lewis's, although "behavioral life-function of the soul" is not Lewis's usual English). It should go.

As for the rest of it, both zoe and psyche are used for the spiritual life in the NT; bios is used only for "livelihood"; but this may be accident. (Both can mean that in Greek. See LSJ on bios A II, and Zoe A. These alaso outline the difference of force between the two words. ) Septentrionalis 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete. The only part that's not original resource is a laundry list of quotes from C.S. Lewis. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There seems to be a very similar page at Zoe, Spiritual Life. Considering it's basically the same topic and even less developed, would anyone have a problem with this page meeting the same fate as the one nominated here? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sure, of course. The same user created these, at about the same time, and they were exact copies back then. For the time being, I've simply redirected the one to the other. Thanks for spotting this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Walker[edit]

Regional minor reporter. The page was created by Steve douglas1981 (talk · contribs · count) who seems to be his colleague (at least if we are to trust Stephen Douglas (news presenter)). A Google search for "amanda walker is less than instructive. However, the search for "Amanda Walker" + "ITV Border" returns a whopping 2 hits which are this article of course.[1]]. A search on that TV's website came up empty [2]. Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:VAIN--TBCTaLk?!? 01:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per TBC. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per TBC. Danny Lilithborne 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per TBC. 1ne 02:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't A7 this one, but it's still not a keeper. --Dennis The TIger 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per TBC. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wasn't this deleted recently? Dlyons493 Talk 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Douglas (news presenter)[edit]

Not even clear that this guy exists. [3] In any case, if he does exist, it is a blatant vanity page created by Steve douglas1981 (talk · contribs · count) who, among other things created this tasteful article on a purpoted colleage. At best a local reporter with no exposure. Pascal.Tesson 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If real Speedy delete as A7.
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:VAIN--TBCTaLk?!? 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for same reasons as Amanda Walker and nom. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. As a reporter myself, I know there is nothing inherently special about us. Aplomado ^talk 01:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7. Danny Lilithborne 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7. 1ne 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it weren't A7'd, I'd vote. --Dennis The TIger 04:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. kingboyk 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GHD[edit]

Article is advertising Paul Fisher 01:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails WP:CORP, and none of the material in the article is acceptable for wikipedia. If the article is accurate in asserting that they make the #1 brand of hair irons, then it would be acceptable to mention it in that article, but that's it. My Alt Account 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADS and WP:CORP; recently created company with only three products. Also, hasn't been the subject of any non-trivial published works.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alt Account. Besides, it's a TLA. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with relish and zest. Daniel Case 02:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. --Supermath 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. MER-C 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPAM. Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM, WP:CORP. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious ad. The hair irons in my house aren't GHD, either =). Lankiveil 11:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
#REDIRECT Growth hormone deficiency Pavel Vozenilek 12:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bursticane[edit]

This article talks about a "bursticane", and includes even an intensity scale, but when you look deeper into it, a search about the term returns only a blog entry and Wikipedia mirrors. This term is not used in AMS journals, or in any other reputable academic source. Delete. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism that smacks of original research, given the recent dates cited. Djcartwright 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious neologism to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. 1ne 02:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Possible OR. --Core des at talk. o_O 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike, Djcar, Nilf, Hurricane, and 1ne. —Khoikhoi 05:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Michael 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 11:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as nominatior and other delete opiner have withdrawn their opinions. GRBerry 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsherim Soobzokov[edit]

I question the whole thing. In particular, the Google search seems to come up only with wikimirrors or extreme right-wing forums like [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=93907]. Seems like the whole thing reeks of Protocols of the Elders of Zion-ness. Will gladly retract if anyone can come up with multiple reliable sources. Pascal.Tesson 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted the nomination. See below Pascal.Tesson 08:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Soobzokov has been mentioned by CBS News, Fox News, USA Today, Chicago Sun-Times, New Jersey Jewish Standard, CTV, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Boston Globe and the World Socialist Website. It seems Soobzokov was in some sort of CIA Nazi-related coverup.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all of those are reprints of the exact same AP article, which mention Soobzokov one time, and do not mention the incident this article is about. this link contains no information about Soobzokov. Can you explain? My Alt Account 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Associated Press is one of the world's largest and most trusted news agencies. Also, Soobzokov played a large part in CIA coverup as the CIA continually misled U.S. immigration officials in the mid-1970s about the role of Soobzokov and his connection to Nazi war crimes. As for the New York Times link, the article does talk about Soobzokov, but (as with all Online New York Times articles) you'll have to register and subscribe first to read the whole article.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not questioning whether the AP is a trusted news agency, I'm pointing out that you just flooded us with a bunch of links to the exact same news article, each of which gives him 1-sentence treatment. Can you summarize the NYT info? I have no intention of subscribing... My Alt Account 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, note that not all of the links are duplicate articles, such as the links to New Jersey Jewish Standard, Boston Globe and World Socialist Website. Also the New York Times article basically states that the FBI concluded that the Jewish Defense League may have bombed Soobzokov, as based from external sources referencing the article.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        as based from external sources referencing the article? Are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing? Doesn't matter anyway, I'm still voting delete. As for the other stuff, I admit to ignoring the Boston Globe link because it was taking too long to load. I didn't read the NJ Jewish Standard link because it's not a major news org (and I'd just gotten done closing about half a dozen of the exact same article that you linked me to, and assumed it'd be more of the same). As for the World Socialist Website, I didn't bother checking that because I don't really consider them to be a news source. My Alt Account 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually what explains my poor count on Google is the misspelling of the name. The Wikipedia article incorrectly spells his first name Tsherim instead of Tscherim. I have to agree then that it could be kept although I have very strong reservations about the POV. Pascal.Tesson 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting nomination per NYTimes reference on the bombing. I will move the page to its proper spelling and try to edit in a more neutral tone. Pascal.Tesson 02:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold up. That link goes to 3 abstracts. One mentions JDL bombings but not Soobzokov. The other two mention Soobzokov but not JDL. What's more, supposing JDL did bomb this guy, I still don't see a reason why he needs full article treatment! Is there any legitimate reason why this can't be covered on the JDL page? My Alt Account 02:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing the AP article seems to confirm that

he had Nazi connections
he was a CIA agent
the CIA helped in covering up his shady past.

That sounds notable enough. I'm currently editing the article to bring that info in. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that we have the spelling right, Google spits out all sorts of nice little factoids about this guy. Like a vigorous defense of his record by Pat Buchanan! [4] Pascal.Tesson 03:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough info for an article. For someone who wants to dig through the sources, this may warrant an addition to the Jewish Defense League article. My Alt Account 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Keep. Pascal.Tesson really turned this article around! My Alt Account 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think you are being stubborn. Take for instance these two other links [5] and [6]. This is an interesting story. I'd rather have a good article that someone will actually care about than have this recreated by some neonazi conspiracy theorist next year. Pascal.Tesson 03:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm being stubborn because there's no basis for an article here. I imagine if I were a neo-nazi, I would prefer for this info to be in the JDL article because that might be a better way to smear jews. The Washington Times link there just repeats the info that's in all the other news articles, and does not mention the bombing. I couldn't open the fas.org pdf. Note that I never objected to this article on the grounds that it's false or offensive. My problem is that this guy is NN. My Alt Account 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems like he is important enough to pass WP:BIO, though not by much. --Supermath 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, I have rewritten the article. Now I would be very surprised if this does not satisfy everyone's notability threshold but I am open to comments of course. Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What can I say, you are good! Vote changed. Enough said.My Alt Account 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Man, anytime I'm doing categorization I hope I can actually find hidden gems like this one. Gotta love Wikipedia... Pascal.Tesson 04:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article should have been marked with a cleanup tag not a proposed deletion. Seano1 22:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe the history of the AfD is not entirely clear from the above discussion. I had not realized the name was misspelled and so I could not find references other than very dubious ones. The text has in fact been cleaned up and the nomination retracted. The debate is dead and if I was an admin I would already have closed it myself. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 `'mikka (t) 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Numa[edit]

Viral marketing campaign by the Numa Numa guy. See WP:AN#Gary Brolsma wikipedia advertising campaign. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Numa Numa. This latest venture merits little more than a footnote until it actually becomes a success on its own, if that happens. Aplomado ^talk 02:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Numa Numa, as per above.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Numa Numa, as per above. --ArmadilloFromHell 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Numa, numa iei... —Khoikhoi 05:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Michael 08:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the King of Numa...... :) FreddyFred 08:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As above 27pence 09:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious ad. Lankiveil 11:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per above Computerjoe 's talk 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Khoikhoi. - Kookykman|(t)e 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per nom, too early to tell. --Tony Narlock 17:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say anything about keeping? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video has just been released; let's give it some time before we rush to conclusions. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- Do you not understand the meaning of notability? "Let's keep it to see if it becomes notable" is not how things work around here. We are documenting notability, not promoting it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need to be so aggressive Zoe, please relax. This phenomenon is notable, and is already being covered by non-trivial sources such as The Mercury News. [7] RFerreira 07:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleteThey are just trying to market the song User:anonymous
Merge and I'm not making any bets on its success. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Numa Numa. Sephylight 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numa Numa, spam spam. (There is already a section in the main article.) Robert A.West (Talk) 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main Numa Numa. Crazysunshine 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Numa Numa. --Stlemur 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Numa Numa --Defragged 16:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Viral marketing crap. Not really worthy of merging, the mention in Numa Numa documents it well enough and this just reads like a press release. Shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. istewart 07:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Numa Numa. On second thought, Gary Brolsma really should have his own article, but that is neither here nor there. RFerreira 07:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I dont like having advertising on Wikipedia either. Nwwaew 11:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, admavertisming, belongs with Numa Numa Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awesome song. --ZFU738 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It is an internet phenomina, not advertising.--IsaacN 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge shameless promo. `'mikka (t) 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have recreated Gary Brolsma. This covers the info from New Numa, ~~which, I see has a disambig link on it to New Numa (song) just to complicate matters.~~ (deleted as copyvio) Tyrenius 10:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Numa Numa." it deserves mention, but not own article.

Merge to Numa Numa Viral marketing at it's worst. Please, I urge this page be merged. User:WastBarktender100

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Monkeys[edit]

Fancruft Djcartwright 02:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think there's really anything in there worth trying to merge into another article. Djcartwright 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A redirect and a merge are very different things. See WP:R and WP:MM for more info.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TBC. Danny Lilithborne 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TBC. Michael 08:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Lankiveil 11:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per TBC. Jdclevenger 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Smells like spam (viral marketing, if you must) to me. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a description of a parody of the cartoons-as-30-minute-advertisements trend. Rainbow Monkeys are entirely fictional, but get the sort of treatment that actual toys would in other cartoons. It's a fairly clever joke, but we don't need an article on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TBC. Indrian 02:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Codename: Kids Next Door 30-minute episodes[edit]

Fancruft, potential listcruft Djcartwright 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, as there are already six lists on Kids Next Door episodes [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].--TBCTaLk?!? 02:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I aldo think those six lists should be merged together and slimmed down. TJ Spyke 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think those lists could be deleted altogether. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of useless information. Is there a way to do it all at once, or do we have to tag every one individually? Djcartwright 02:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - this is horrible, 99% of the length is attributable to redundant info that has no excuse being here. And even if that were trimmed down, it would still be fancruft/listcruft. My Alt Account 02:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRUFT and the fact that it's just plain redundant and repetitive. --Supermath 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the other lists. BryanG^(talk) 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack, apparently they're not in the season lists after all. Merge into the respective season lists, it makes more sense to have them with the other episode summaries than off by themselves in a seperate list. BryanG^(talk) 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 08:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 08:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ale_Jrb ^talk 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks like someone has put a lot of work into all these articles, so it's almost a shame, but I don't really these articles offer much. Perhaps a condensed list could be put on Codename: Kids Next Door. Lankiveil 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- There are a bunch of other redundant lists in the set. Don't worry about hurting the author(')s(') feelings. Djcartwright 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.UberCryxic 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There hundreds of episode lists on wikipedia. Seano1 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A large number of them are for this show. Djcartwright 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — redundant with the other lists -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second this doesn't appear to be redundant - looking at it again it appears that these are in a seperate list because they are special 30 minute episodes... RN 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still somewhat redundant, because these episodes are still listed in the big list. There has to be some consolidation somewhere. Preferably in another wiki; there's no need for this degree of detail here. Djcartwright 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which big list? I didn't see those episodes listed in the six mentioned here; and yeah there should be consolidation... RN 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're mentioned in the list of all episodes, the one that has been largely spared deletion. Djcartwright 05:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the list is disjoint with the season-by-season lists, but the material would probably be better there. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does one merge one list with six whilst preserving the GFDL? I'm assuming there is some sort of "write the info in then delete this" kind of compromise... RN 05:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split each 30-mins episode into their own page. If FMA has it, why can't KND. - Plau 13:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 more like OR than hoax, but still. DS 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRASB rating system for NBA players[edit]

this appears to be a hoax article - provides no references for PRASB ArmadilloFromHell 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a hoax. No google results, other than those from Wikipedia [14].--TBCTaLk?!? 03:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:HOAX. --Supermath 03:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete IS A GOOD RATING SYSTEM

Comment How so? Michael 08:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially after unsigned comment above. Lankiveil 11:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes[edit]

Fancruft, listcruft, and twice redundant. Djcartwright 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, TV episodes list are useful. I would support deleting the other 6 articles of individual seasons though. TJ Spyke 02:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the list is useful for navigating through episode related information. Also, we already have episode lists for the Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, Seinfeld, etc. However, I agree with TJ Spyke in that the other 6 episode lists need to be deleted.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, and let me add that it's precisely the existence of this article that justifies the deletion of the other episode lists. My Alt Account 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on account that there are other TV episode lists on here. --Dennis The TIger 04:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as episode lists are generally useful. The individual season lists desperately need cleanup, but I'm not sure about deleting them altogether since this list gives no information on plot. BryanG^(talk) 04:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJ Spyke. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not anywhere on the template, but the other six season lists are. We should keep those, get rid of the episode list. It makes sense. Numbuh Pi 09:02, 10 September 2006
Keep per precedent, but delete the individual season episode lists and merge any usable additional information here. 23skidoo 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of these lists need cleanup, but that's all.
Keep — , and delete the other 6 seasons lists -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a basic list of episodes, their acronyms, number, and airdate is useful. I support NOT deleting the others, since they have synopises of the episodes.
Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has episode lists for tons of shit. ReverendG 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is all-encompassing, thus making it an indiscriminate collection of information. No specific episodes have been picked out to discuss, and NO attempt has been made to indicate why ANY of these episodes are of encyclopedic value. Just because similar pages exist does not mean additional ones also belong; you don't dump sewage into a pond simply because it was already polluted when you found it. Garrett^Talk 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not itself an indiscriminate collection of information, that does not mean any and all articles must intentionally omit information such that they can be said to discriminate. Should we delete articles on 'worthless' countries of the world since putting them ALL in here would be indiscriminate? Maybe omit some albums from the Beatles' discography? There is a place for comprehensive and complete listings of specific information within a greater discriminating collection of information. --Rankler 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: no real reason given to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant with season-by-season lists. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - Episode lists are useful, this page was originally in the KND page. - Plau 13:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per norm. Hmrox 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A good object lesson on the consequences of the word "cruft" in a deletion nom. Mango juice^talk 14:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Villains Inventions and Pets in Codename: Kids Next Door[edit]

Fancruft, listcruft, dullcruft. Djcartwright 02:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fancruft--TBCTaLk?!? 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:CRUFT and nom. --Supermath 03:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the cruftiest of cruft. Danny Lilithborne 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. Michael 08:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but reading fancruft, I see the following section:
Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.

Nothing on this page strikes me as violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research. Is it of value? Obviously not to those not interested in KND. But that is true for almost all television based wikistuff. I find KND to be well-written and immaginative, offering interesting paradoies of other television concepts. So much so, that I have made passing references to the show in courses I teach. Having a comprehensive list of episodes and technology references would be of value to me (and possibly others). I don't want to overstate this--obviously it is still basically a kid's show and I think its ultimate penetration into the marketplace of ideas will be limited. Jdclevenger 17:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If it's of value to you, then save it all to your own computer before it gets deleted, or help us move it to a more appropriate wiki. This is just too much detail for a global encyclopedia. Djcartwright 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well, for the reasons Jdclevenger describes. There are plenty of other such lists in Wikipedia, I don't see why this particular one is so much worse than the others. Besides, simply repeating words with "-cruft" suffixes over and over again is not an argument. Someone should actually make a real case for the deletion of this article, please. Bryan 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is only verifiable by watching the show, and is as such original research of the type of describing a bird by watching one fly. Also, Wikipedia ill-needs more lists of incidental objects in fictional series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is harmless and can be usefull to some people -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most Star Trek episodes have there own articles. There are lists of Star Trek and Star Wars of vehicles and characters that only appear in obscure comics or navels. If articles like Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild or Spells in Harry Potter are ok how is this TV series different? The 3 world nomination doesn't say much. Dullcruft subjects 'I don't personally care for it'. I don't care much of Diskworld articles, so should all Diskworld articles be deleted? Seano1 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jdclevenger and the other Bryan. Wiki is not paper. BryanG^(talk) 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT; failing that split into separate articles and categorize. Kappa 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This list covers seemingly all the items (thus making it indiscriminate) and none of them seem to have more than one appearance in the whole series (thus failing WP:N). There you have it, two strong reasons to remove this unnecessary kndcruft. Garrett^Talk 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I hate to repeat myself, but: Wikipedia is not itself an indiscriminate collection of information, that does not mean any and all articles must intentionally omit information such that they can be said to discriminate. Should we delete articles on 'worthless' countries of the world since putting them ALL in here would be indiscriminate? Maybe omit some albums from the Beatles' discography? There is a place for comprehensive and complete listings of specific information within a greater discriminating collection of information. --Rankler 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wow. A fallacious Appeal to consequences argument, if I've ever read one... To keep this article because we may delete articles on small countries or beatles albums. --Kunzite 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, if not, reduce it to a few recurring and important items. For the same reasons that I'd get rid of three parts of the Star Trek and Star Wars stuff, and I see no reason to replicate the Encyclopedia of Arda either, and I am a huge Tolkien fan. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indrian 02:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT, appending -cruft to a sentence is not a valid reason to delete. RFerreira 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -AMK152 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list was created just for the sake of having such a list; The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; The list is unencyclopaedic. KDN maybe a notable TV show, but every single aspect of the plotline surely is not. This DOES NOT meet fiction notability guidelines as it contains no third-party sources. (And the primary soruced bits are not in-line with WP:CITE or WP:RS.) --Kunzite 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep it per fict guideline or split into separate articles Yuckfoo 18:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's a bit excessive, but it seems reasonably well-done, and I'm sure fans of the show find it quite useful.Raymondluxuryacht 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will fans of show find it useful? Yes. Will everyone else reading Wikipedia? No. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, then recreate as redirect. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyer of nations[edit]

I don't see how this isn't covered appropriately enough in Xena or any related articles. Granted, I don't know a lot about the show Daniel Case 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xena--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TBC. TJ Spyke 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Has been used historically, not just in a soon forgotten TV product. Pavel Vozenilek 02:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or per Bwithh. Could be short article, once. Pavel Vozenilek 11:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nebuchadrezzar II. Xena the TV show lifted all kinds of characters,phrases and plots from mythology, ancient history, and classical texts, mashed them up and regurgitated the hairball for our lazy primetime viewing. "Destroyer of nations" is a popular way of translating a phrase from the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 4:7 - note how 5 out of 8 translations in this link use the phrase)), part of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament. The phrase is from a prophecy that is taken to refer to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadrezzar II [15][16][17] Bwithh 02:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Bwithh. --Supermath 03:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Bwithh. Danny Lilithborne 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bwithh. Michael 08:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bwithh. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Lankiveil 11:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and Redirect ~~to Xena~~. --Dennisthe2 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: removed redirection suggestion; I'll leave this up to the cognoscenti. --Dennisthe2 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bwithh. Not enough content for an article, and whatever content could be there would just duplicate what is already on Xena. I doubt that anyone referring to Xena would link to or search for "Destroyer of nations". --Cswrye 05:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nebuchadrezzar II per Bwithh. This is the historically-significant usage. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Internal node (nothing to merge). --- Deville (Talk) 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal vertices[edit]

The information in this page is covered completely and more accurately by Tree (data structure). Bobbyhood 02:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tree (data structure)--TBCTaLk?!? 02:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal node pending resolution of the merge proposal. This "article" is atrocious, but I have reservations about merging/redirecting all of these to Tree (data structure) because the concepts are also relevant to things like phylogenetic trees, which encapsulate the same idea but aren't data structures. Opabinia regalis 02:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge. Good information and a clear diagram, but too slight a topic for its own article, I feel. Lankiveil 11:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge dicdef. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was d is for "deletion", that's good enough for me. DS 14:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookiholic[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]}Protologism. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO--TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Neologism, extremely short, uncyclopedic ("This can be annoying because you will gain lots of weight and run out of cookies very fast."). Someone was desperate to create an article. Djcartwright 03:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me toss in WP:NFT on this too. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all of the above comments. --Supermath 03:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. ♠P M C♠ 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Danny Lilithborne 05:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan. —Khoikhoi 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AbsoluteDan. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonei Csoka[edit]

Putting this here because ^{[Check Google hits]} Googling found, among the 79 hits, one suggesting he played a role in finding the gene behind progeria. This would make him notable, but it was the only mention of it. Can someone do better than me on this? Daniel Case 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, he identified a possible gene behind progeria but his research is not yet complete. ~~Delete~~ unless someone can find better or more updated sources. zephyr2k 04:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to recent changes to the article and meeting WP:V. I change my vote to Keep. Looks like another triumph for AFD. zephyr2k 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:PROF and he's just an Assistant Professor. Csoka appears to have published 8 papers (in only one of which he is principal author). He's listed as 14th author in what I take to be the key paper [18]. He seems to be mostly involved in fairly routine Progeria mouse models [19] - ongoing research that's important but not encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see 18 papers, not 8, and he is first or senior author on 8 of those papers. Also, listing of authors goes from both ends, so if someone is near the back of a list of authors, it usually means they played a more senior role in designing the research.Mattlewis777 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He discovered the gene for Progeria. This is a major finding in aging research.Mattlewis777 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's certainly not the discoverer - his own site says he was a key player in the identification of the gene and probably all that means in practice is that his lab did some of the work. Given that this sort of science takes place in large teams then a lot of people get small amounts of credit. P.S. User's first edit. Dlyons493 Talk 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dr. Antonei Csoka is a key discoverer of Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome, which could prove to have a major impact on the rate of aging in humans. Dr. Csoka is also an active supporter and speaker within the life extension community and was featured in the 2005 scientific documentary, Exploring Life Extension Bjklein 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a documentary from a commercial organisation. Appearing on promotional material for the life extension community adds little to his notability IMHO. Out of curiosity, are you the Bruce Klein that interviewed him for that film [20]? Dlyons493 Talk 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment They're not a commercial organisation, they're a non-profit. prometheus1 05:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no overwhelming reason to delete this entry. He is a co-discoverer of molecular mechanisms related to progeroid syndromes and one of his papers was published in the prestigious Nature journal (for a complete list of his papers see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Csoka+AB%22%5BAuthor%5D prometheus1 05:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has made significant contributions to gerontological research and is well-known within the life extension and broader scientific communities. Deleting the entry for Dr. Csoka would be inappropriateAbahrick 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the user's first edit. Account created 03:34, September 13, 2006 zephyr2k 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Medline finds only 18 papers, but the Nature paper referred to above is a significant one. Espresso Addict 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The isolation of the gene for Progeria is a significant milestones in gerontology. Although we don't know for sure what his exact role in it was, even being part of it is notable. And he is still doing significant research on aging. Xena Y. Zavier 04:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the user's first edit. Account created 01:14, September 14, 2006. zephyr2k 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither his academic stature nor his role in science alone sufficiently justify the inclusion of this article by Wikipedian standards. But he has enough recognition among other gerontologists to be listed in Who Is Who in Gerontology. He is a scientific advisor for both Alcor Life Extension Foundation [21] and the transhumanist journalist organization Betterhumans. These facts make him a notable person in subcultures which, in addition to his academic stature and scientific accomplishments, justify the Wikipedia entry. --Ben Best 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. He is not the most famous gerontologist in the world, but he is still a notable figure.213.87.86.28 03:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Highlyeffective[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to Disk encryption software. Naconkantari 22:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption on Linux[edit]

All information here is a duplication of Disk encryption software and any other original information is superfluous. Etienne 03:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Disk encryption software.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Disk encryption software. --Supermath 03:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect in concurrence with Supermath. --Dennis The TIger 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, concur with TBC. Lankiveil 11:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've merged the articles. Please redirect Encryption on Linux to Disk_encryption_software#Linux. -Etienne 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isgay.com[edit]

Contested prod, reason was "This website has circulated in many an office e-mail and it always creates controversy whenever I hear anyone speak about it. Many people think that someone created a site to bash them. It has value." However, the article does not assert notability. MER-C 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 265,047 [22]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pranks, no matter how clever, are not encyclopedia material. ♠P M C♠ 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per PMC. --Supermath 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TBC. Danny Lilithborne 05:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've actually seen this website years ago in high scool, but still not notable enough to keep. VegaDark 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable, and the site didn't function correctly using Firefox anyway ;) - Longhair 09:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB as non notable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was quite notorious at school when I was, like, fourteen. Immature, yeah, but notable enough, I think. Lankiveil 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, per above. Shortfuse 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't belong here.UberCryxic 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, I don't find the "we loved it in school" criteria for establishing notability in any of the guidelines! :; --kingboyk 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Entirely non encyclopedia material -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non encyclopedic material. Upholder 16:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See my last comment. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O&A Army[edit]

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

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

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

DELETE There is no encyclopedic value and regards a group whose size and impact are culturally insignificant. It reads more as advertising for The Opie & Anthony show and contains information which is difficult to verify thereby making it an unreliable resource. Wikipedia's value is that its contrinutors and editors value accuracy and truthfulness highly. With no way to verify the claims made by this entry's author, and through the insignificance of the subject, it serves as a blight on Wikipedia's reputation.

Strong Delete- This page is nothing more then a branging Trophy for these Pests. Their actions are an utter disgrace to be displayed on Wikipedia. Many of the problems they have caused are illegal also. This content has no encyclopedic value and should be removed by all means necessary. JPJ 05:21, 11 September 2006

Strong Keep-Thus far the article has survived, even though there is no such army particularly in a smaller form on the main Opie and Anthony page. The "Pests" as they are, are a major part of the show and have grown to such a degree that they have recieved attention in national publications and even warranted a mentioning on O&A's David Letterman Appearance. The evidence is overwhelming to keep this section. Payneos 04:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before... Wikipedia is not the place for an article like this. This article exists just to promote a group of people. It has NO encyclopedic value, and I say this as an Opie & Anthony fan. DELETE--XMBRIAN 04:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE XMBRIAN is the original nominator of this afd. I'm not moving their nominating statement to the top of the list as it breaks up the um... dialogue flow here. Regular process puts the nomination statement at the top of the afd discussion, but it looks like User:Payneos beat the nominator to be first at the afd page here. Bwithh 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, but it does. This article is longer than many other articles and includes a lot of information on the particular topic of "The Pests." One may take an interest to looking them up, based on the fact that they may have read aboot them in a publication, heard aboot them on Opie and Anthony, or may have seen Pest activities on the streets. It has encyclopedic value, and many articles tend to promote things. McDonalds is noteworthy, but it promotes McDonalds. Payneos 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No.. it's not. It has nothing to do with how long it is if it's all pure shit. I bet if I added a criticism section to this article you'd go all apeshit on me, right?--XMBRIAN 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I wouldn't, depending on how well it was written. If you went off on the Pests, calling them full of shit and all fuckheads, maybe I would because that's certainly not encyclopaedic. You're just too lazy or afraid to add one. So instead of whining, why not go and add that criticism article? I could even help, because I know some fans do take exception to Pest activities. Payneos 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not adding anything to a lame duck page.--XMBRIAN 04:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which proves what your aim is. Not to improve Wikipedia, but to tear down whatever you don't agree with. Your deletion notions are ridiculous. If you're not going to help, don't bother coming here. This isn't helping, it's destructive. Payneos 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Kind of like what the pests do to other radio shows. Irony... huh?--XMBRIAN 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Agenda showing much, pookie? Payneos 04:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OMG! LETS CALL A PAT BATTLE ON ME! RAMMMMMONE, FETCH ME A BIKINI TINNI!--XMBRIAN 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a deletion page, not a place for "Pat Battle" Claims or a "Ramone" joke. You say the article is unencyclopaedic, but your demeanor is unbecoming of an editor to this encyclopedia. You don't seem to be taking it very seriously. Payneos 04:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        face the fact that i'm right.. no matter what my "agenda" as you call it may be. --XMBRIAN 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll let others come and decide that. But I have a strong feeling this article will survive, whether in present form or not, despite what you want. Payneos 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah.. let others decide. However, if this gets posted on Wackbag or FBA as a link for the pests to voice "their" opinions, then this article should just be deleted on the spot.--XMBRIAN 05:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't control that, however I will say I won't do that because when fansites get involved they tend to just vandalize the page for the hell of it (Making Ramone jokes, Ol' Gravy Leg references, the like.) So, we'll keep it relatively quiet, lest we want to revert vandalism every two minutes. Payneos 05:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show's notable, the fan base not so much. Wildthing61476 05:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we're all clear, remember the articles of Friends of Opie and Anthony and Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony, all of which are offshoots of the orginal Opie and Anthony article and even the latter has already survived one attempt at deletion, which I might add was/is more POV and worse written than this article. Keep it in mind. Payneos 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee... why is one of the links red? hmmmm...--XMBRIAN 05:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of the links are red, I simply mispelled one, check again. Payneos 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - your bad.--XMBRIAN 05:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Article exists, however. Payneos 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft incarnate. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for fan groups Bwithh 05:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft incarnate indeed. Eusebeus 12:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Ghastly. Fancruft, no reliable sources. --kingboyk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Mack. 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything wrong with this article. Seano1 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why waste bandwidth on a such an insignifigant group? 76.0.208.71
Delete, this is an insane amount of cruft for one radio show and the nature of the content is hopelessly un-encyclopedic. My Alt Account 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The pests are a fan base, yes, but they have become a part of pop-culture in the impact they have had on the fate of some entertainment sources. Links to support, including forbes, a pretty solid citation. http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/13/xm-sirius-marketing-cx_gl_0713autofacescan05.html?partner=yahootix "Cumia and the Pests have effectively pushed the O&A brand in the public's face. Now that' s viral marketing." FMQB http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=186874 Also from FMQB, First fan base to raise a billboard for a radio ad http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanthony/displayheadline.cfm/id/8213/div/opieanthony/headline/THE_OPIE_AND_ANTHONY__PESTS__GET_MENTIONED_IN_FMQB.html Dugout Doug 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. At some point after this last comment the AFD must have been advertised off-wiki. Please remember that consensus is not determined by solicited "votes", unsigned comments, or new accounts. --kingboyk 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepWhether you like the pest or not, they are apart of a national radio show and have been mention in numerous publications. if you get rid of the PESTS then go to anything else that isn't "encyclopiedia worthy".
Strong Keep The O&A Army is a group of fans that are a part of the Opie & Anthony Show, and often times are guests of the show, in and out of the studio. They are an integral part of the show, and they're growing. The links above demonstrate same. They should be treated with the same respect as any guest of the show, if not more. For example, Richard Dreufuss was a guest of the show. Shall we delete his article as well? Likewise for any other guest who's appeared on the show, and has their own article. This deletion request is clearly motivated by personal reasons, as opposed to professional ones.
Strong Delete The pests only exist on the Opie and Anthony show and articles related to them should be in the wiki O&A article. No legitimate reason for them to have a seperate article except for them to try to get their names mentioned on yet another internet space. The fact that they are posting links to this discussion on their message boards so non-wiki users will come here to support them shows their desperation for attention.

^^^ couldn't agree more!--XMBRIAN 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we're all clear, this article is not too far off from being a very similar one to the Trekkies or Browncoats articles. Would you delete that one as well? Consider that, along with the many credible cited sources involved in this article, before you consider deletion. Payneos 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY CRAP! READ WHAT IVE BEEN POSTING! NOMINATE IT YOURSELF!

NONE of the articles I have cited I have EVER had a problem with! However, they are all articles you SHOULD have a problem with because you are the one who is complaining aboot THIS article. But there are many articles that are called into question due to the precident you may set in THIS article.

I AM a Browncoat, and Trekkies SHOULD have their own article. But the way you're arguing why the Pests shouldn't have their own article, neither should Trekkies or Browncoats. Thus, I expose your agenda. Payneos 04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is my agenda? WHY DONT YOU COME OUT AND SAY IT?--XMBRIAN 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To remove all traces of The Pests from Wikipedia, and readd the Spaz baloney back in. For what reason you have this particular agenda, I do not know, but it's none of my business why. However, I'm making it my business to stop it. YOur personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia. Payneos 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched the O&A article in months. if you had a fucking brain, you'd realize that I want to put this back into the O&A article.--XMBRIAN 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would pay more attention to earlier notes, the reason this article came into true existance when I found it and cleaned it up was because the O&A article was already over 80kb long, which is FAR longer than the recommended (or sometimes allowed) amount of content for the O&A Main Article. Hence, this is how this article came to be. It can go back in the main article, but will eventually once again outgrow the main article. Payneos 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you leave all this unneeded shit out.--XMBRIAN 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)--XMBRIAN 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much disagree with the whole of the article, which is why you proposed deletion, and not *suggested* merging it. You went three steps ahead, not even calling for moderation or suggesting an offical merging, but just right to deletion. Payneos 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?--XMBRIAN 04:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YA RLY. NO WAI! I know the internet too. Payneos 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO YA?--XMBRIAN 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)--XMBRIAN 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Stupid? Jimmy's my hero. "Is he?" Yeah. He is. Payneos 04:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Flash Virus is mine! --XMBRIAN 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep So since this article should be deleted, I guess all articles about fangroups and fanbases should be deleted as well, correct? That means The Grateful Dead's Dead Heads, Phish's Phish Heads, Firefly/Serenity's Browncoats, Star Trek's Trekkies and even American Idol's Taylor Hicks' Soul Patrol articles should all be deleted as well, right? Just because they're loosely affilitated fangroups, that doesn't mean they don't have some kind of cultural impact and it doesn't mean their articles should be deleted. It's already been revealed that XMBRIAN has a personal grudge against the O&A Army which is fueling his request for this article's deletion. His motives are personal and petty, he's not requesting it for the improvement of Wikipedia.

You do not know my true motives. Maybe I don't care for the pests, true. However, explain the other people who have voted delete? Do they hate the pests too? Wah wah! You sound like Howie.. the Fcc is out to get me! Wah wah! Brian is out to get me!--XMBRIAN 05:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to deflect attention from the fact that you've lost ground in this argument. Give us a valid reason that hasn't been addressed and debunked to prove that your motives aren't personal. We've already presented plenty of articles and coverage of the Pests' exploits to warrant the existence of this article. Heck, there are fangroups who have less coverage and attention paid to them that have their own Wiki.

Pests advertising and soliciting meatpuppets Wiki editors should consider Dugout Doug's solicitation of outsiders to this discussion in making their decision about this article.

http://oaexperience.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4501

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible.

The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

And what is wrong with asking fans to contribute to this discussion and to lobby against this article's deletion? People with "limited Wikipedia background" shouldn't be discriminated against since they can also bring a lot of valid points to the discussion. Now you're the one whose whining because the argument isn't going your way.

Its wikipedia rules See this link and scroll down to meat puppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Accounts_created_by_brand_new_users_acting_together_.28.27meatpuppets.27.29

Learn it, know it, live it

And what if those people go on to have extensive Wikipedia backgrounds? Are they still meat puppets then? I actually do have a Wikipedia account and have edited several articles in the past including this one (I added the "O&A Army Vs. O&^A Pests" section), but forgot my password. And even if I recovered it, using my account now would give the impression that I was doing sock puppetry by posting anonymously at first and then under my Wikipedia account after.

You're capable of sock/meat puppetry as much as we are, all you need is an IP Spoofer or a few pals. How do we know you haven't been doing it?

And you don't think we see what you're trying to do? It seems that you're upset because more people seem to be opposed to your request for deletion than there are approval of it, so you're trying to get the Wikipedia people to become suspicious that there are meat/sock puppetry going on to discredit the opinions of people opposed to you who have been alerted to your request to delete this article on OA Experience. I, for one, have not been doing sock/meat puppetry, all Wikipedia has to do is check my own IP to see all my posts are coming from the same place. But alas, there's that darn IP Spoofer strategy, and the circle of suspicion goes around and around. Your attempt at breeding suspicion to get your way is so transparent. Accusing us of sock/meat puppetry doesn't change the fact that we countered your request for deletion with articles of the Pests' activities and other instances of loyal fanbases like the Pests getting their own Wiki, and whether or not this Wiki is deleted shouldn't be decided on sock/meat puppetry, but on the facts we've presented.

And furthermore, being someone with "extensive Wikipedia background" means nothing also. Just as it is capable of people having more than one account through an IP Spoofer, it is possible for someone to have more than one account with "extensive Wikipedia background" as well. Stop trying to discredit others' opinions because they haven't posted on Wikipedia as long as you. It's in the same vein as the false superiority people get when they have a huge post count on a message board and they see a newbie with a diminutive post count. High or low post counts mean nothing, extensive or limited Wikipedia background means nothing. As long as you make valid points, how much time you spend on a board or how many posts you have means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.67 (talk • contribs)

Sock puppets and meat puppets are against official Wikipedia policy. That is the policy. Don't like it, go argue it on the Wikipedia policy pages. Dougout Doug is the one who publicly engaged in meat puppetry before checking the policy. Why do you have such a hard time believing that more than one person could disagree with you? I am not Xmbrian and know nothing about him. There is a whole message board of O&A fans that don't like the pests. Sending more pests here from FBA will only damage your case further with the Wikipedia editors. Good day sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.146.213 (talk • contribs)
delete POV article based on warring factions within Opie and Anthony supporters and detractors, list of publicity stunts, etc is tediously crufty. Whilst the show hosts are already deliberately making controversy to improve ratings and notoriety, they appear to be egging on warring factions in a media sideshow, turning the show into reality TV. This article could be likened to outlining all the different shots of every advertisement in any given product's advertising campaign, and is completely indiscriminate. The statement "the goal of the AOTM campaign was to promote the show during live news shots while making reporters look somewhat ridiculous. O&A encouraged their fans to intervene in live news shots outdoors, either by displaying an O&A poster or jumping up and down, shouting something to the effect of "Opie and Anthony! XM Satellite Radio!") in the main article would appear to suffice as a summary. Ohconfucius 08:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, all the nameless people, and AOL proxies are here. I hope Wiki recognized there are 5 people that are against this. I have not called for THOUSANDS of people to strike at this site, and if I am violating a Wiki policy, I apologize. IF I am not supposed to be posting here, I apologize. My goal was to assist those that wanted this article to stay by supplying citations for what the article it stating. The points that the DELETE people were stating, that there were none of. If this complicates things, Payneos, let me know. I was asking for help, so we can gather as much information as we can as possible. Not like there is a little network of S p a z worshippers, or anti-pests right? Dugout Doug 10:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fan articles are relevant. This group has done several notable things, mentioned in the article. I agree that there are already several precedents for similar articles. --Bill.matthews 10:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is about an active, newsmaking, entity. It operates independantly of the Opie and Anthony show and is thus entitled to its own entry. Proponents of deletion here would have you think this is a child entry, but evidence suggests otherwise. Particularly the actions in the "Assault on the Media Campaign" in which Opie and Anthony and XM Satellite Radio distanced themselves from.Krispykremekiller 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The pests who are actively involved on a daily basis warrant the mention on wikipedia. The Opie and Anthony Show prides itself on the full access the fans have to the show and the shaping of it. To deny the impact of this whether it be through Assaults on the Media, Frequent Callers, Pest attacks, so on and so forth does not tell the whole story of what this radio show does. Calling the pests a blight on wikipedia OnA page is unfounded and untrue. ~~ Boston Strangler from FBA

For those who are still not convinced, this little gem that is most certainly "Fancruft incarnate"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Fan_Network seems to be thriving and acceptable. COnsider the hypocracy of a deletion before you make your next decision. Payneos 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To further myself, I notice a lot of cries of "Fancruft", yet no specific lines cited. Rather than delete the whole article, nobody seems to be proposing we rewrite it better and more accurately, and less POV since some seem to think that it is. It's important that people point out what's wrong more specifically, rather than just say one or two words and think they've done their duty. Payneos 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payneos, why must every discussion related to O&A always inevitably end up with a comparison to something related to Howard Stern? Some of those Stern wikipedia articles should be afd as well. Why bring them up here?

Set precident. The Howard Stern articles came first, and I'm using them for the argument's sake. Payneos 00:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "precedent" on AFD in as much as we never keep inappropriate articles because of the existence of other inappropriate articles. If there are articles which should be deleted, nominate them. But don't go nominating articles just to make a point, please. --kingboyk 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet none of you are getting what I'm arguing. YOu're setting up for deletion of many credible and worthy articles, particularly if you let this one go. Every article I have cited I believe is worthy of this encyclopedia, however, what you are arguing is that they are not. It is your job as the editor(s) against THIS article to call for their deletion, not mine, because I think all the articles ARE worthy. Yet I have seen no movement by any editor to do so. Payneos 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payneos, bring them up to AfD then, and state your case for their deletion. I'd probably make the case for a few of them to be honest. Wildthing61476 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The O&A Army which was later called "The Pests" are organized and work by themselves. Tyler--Durden 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and this merits an article HOW?--XMBRIAN 01:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Good, now we can hang a label on. I wonder how it passes WP:CORP? (rhetorical question ;-) )Ohconfucius 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which to counter your sarcasm, I would say it is notable, or did you convienently overlook the slew of articles linked in defense of notability? Payneos 05:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Clearly there is president for fan groups of relevance. The issue here is "what is relevant?" I think the fact that the O&A Army/Pests have been mentioned in numerous news stories makes a strong case for relevance. It should also be noted that someone is looking for sock puppets to argue for deletion on a Howard Stern message board - http://www.SternFanNetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?s=ddc51d0640abe05089c06cca5b9ce586&threadid=166266

--Tlynch5 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is your only contrib. to wikipedia, so I'd have to say that you must be a sock puppet from FBA.--XMBRIAN 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- also your account was created eleven minutes before you made your comment. Admins should take ALL these things into consideration!--XMBRIAN 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have never contributed to an article that required registration so yes this is a new account. I'm not really for or against this article but I think the people from Stern Fan Network are trying to manipulate it for their own reasons and I think if they are successful it sets a bad president. You wouldn't happen to be the guy that started the thread I linked are you?--Tlynch5 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - no i am not.--XMBRIAN 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You must lose a lot of arguements huh XMPEOPLESCHAMPBRIAN? I didnt have to read more then the first line of Wiki's defination of a Sock Puppet to learn "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. " That would mean, peole registering today, as long as they are not, say, Me and Payneos registering alternate names, are NOT Sock Puppets. They are, USERS. Now, if I go and register 30 names and weigh in on this tipoc with all of them, those 30 names would be Dugout Doug Sock Puppets. But people registering and acting on their own, are not. Wow, you think everyone is an idiot huh? Oh yeah, I am SURE the personal attacks you make on me are awaying the neutral Wiki Editors to your stance on this debate. Keep digging big man.Dugout Doug 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People registering only for the purpose of this argument are not USERS either, they are meat puppets. Meat puppets are still against wikipedia policy. Look at this link and scroll down to Meat Puppets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Accounts_created_by_brand_new_users_acting_together_.28.27meatpuppets.27.29

Water Boy 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]

However, unlike meatpuppets, this discussion is bringing in people who, rather than will be a detriment to Wikipedia, will instead contribute to this and many other articles on topics they know something aboot. These aren't meatpuppets, they are real editors, and many will see their work around Wikipedia soon enough. Payneos 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if new people would come here to contribute rather than vandalize. I just don't see how you can make that statement aboot their intended future work like it is a fact.Water Boy 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]
- In a general sense, I always assume authors, unless being brash and arrogant, and clearly showing an agenda, are Acting in good faith. Payneos 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - How do I know that it WASN'T you, Doug? All I'm saying is that that someone coming in on their first edit on Wikipedia with something like this HAS TO raise an eyebrow.--XMBRIAN 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference you miss here. The Pests may be savages when it comes to enemies of the show, but in a place like Wikipedia, they have respect and a demenaor that is quite becoming of this encyclopedia. To be any other way, I know they realize would be detrimental to their efforts, and they know this well. Therefore, any random IP could quite possibly be that, and if necessary, Wikipedia Admin have the power to check. I think they would find, however, there is jus t an outpouring of support for the article. Payneos 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Payneos, do you need a laxative, because you look like you are full of shit! The pests have respect for Wikipedia? Ha! Need I search Wackbag for that thread calling all pests to attack Howard Stern's article last fall? Don't bother answering that question, because I'm going to bed now and I won't be checking this page until tomorrow afternoon, and by then it won't be relevant.--XMBRIAN 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of what side of the argument you are on, PLEASE remember to stick to Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. Your inflammatory comments are hurting your cause as much as the "sockpuppets" hurt the cause of keeping the article. Wildthing61476 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was attempting to make a really bad joke... not making an attack.--XMBRIAN 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get rid of the "pests" or the "army" then you should never have anything for other large fan bases, such as trekkies,and the Browncoats. Not to mention, where will it stop. is there gonna be a discussion everytime someone doesn't like the topic. can i start a discussion on removing any thing have to do with conspiricy theories around 911 or the theory of evolution. whether people like it or not, fans of anything have a voice and when they are mentioned in Forbes magazine, or as a parody on SNL then they have become a bigger part of a wider picture. Frrrunkus 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Frrrunkus[reply]

You can, but it's obvious by your writings you stand for those entries for being in Wikipedia for the same reason that I do. To delete those articles is as much of a detriment to Wikipedia as to delete this one. The Pests have achieved enough notoriety to warrant a large scale article such as this one, and the evidence has been shown in cited articles from FMQB, Foundry, Orbitcast, and even Forbes Magazine. This isn't your average fan-following, to some it's a way of life (which was parodied once by the Church of Opie, since shut down to waning interest in the joke.) Payneos 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The comparison between the "Pests" and Trekkies is odious and when you compare the two it doesn't hold. Trekkies have been around for decades, have had documentaries based on them, have contributed to making Star Trek a household name, and number in the millions the world over. The O&A Pests are just a handful of hardcore O&A fans by comparison, and O&A are far from household names. If this article were to stay then it would open the doors for Wikipedia to be cluttered with "articles" (I use that term loosely) for every drive-time morning DJ/crew in the country. I am not saying that O&A shouldn't have an article, they most certainly should no matter what I think of them, but not their fans.Shemps 14:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That, however, does not explain the existance of Browncoats on Wikipedia, whom have only been around since 2003. Sometimes, that "Handful of fans" is noteworthy, particularly when they make major news media outlets (Like the Pests) or can drastically manipulate DVD sales (like the Browncoats). Payneos 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the Browncoats are very noteworthy, but at least they didn't include a section on "Famous Browncoats". This pest article is just a way for some clowns to put their names on another website.Water Boy 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Water Boy[reply]

- Because the Browncoats are a different entity than the pests. What the Browncoats do is stat petitions and attend Conventions to support the fallen show, Firefly. Pests, however, are frequently mentioned on the show and in the articles they appear in, by name. Thus, some have earned notable individual recognition. Payneos 15:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - The Pests are a force in their own right. They often act without the permission of the Opie and Anthony show. All of thier attacks are well documented. They definitely deserve to have their own article. GA. Wizardnug 11:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Browncoats" should have an article either. Firefly is not a relevant enough show, at least not yet. Perhaps a blurb about the Browncoats on the Firefly page, but most definately not an entire page. Hell, I didn't even know what a Browncoat was until just now. The same for the Pests, a blurb on the O&A page would be just fine. I also have to agree with the folks who are taking umbrage with the "Famous Pests" section. If you take a poll anywhere except an O&A gathering, I'll bet the vast majority of folks will not know who "Dugout Doug" or "General Bam" are. As a group they may have a tiny bit of noteriety (as far as the O&A Universe is concerned) but as individuals they have none at all.Shemps 23:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, disagree. Browncoats were largely responsible for Serenity (the movie) being able to be filmed at all, and have been a massive force behind the sales of Firefly/Serenity DVDs, even organizing certain days where everyone will buy a copy off of... say... Amazon.com, in which it will force sales for the week into teh #1 or #2 slot. But enough aboot Browncoats, that's for another time. The point is, sometimes a fan following has become large enough and notable enough to a point where it can no longer be ignored by even Wikipedia. Trekkies, Browncoats, The Wack Pack, The Pests, in the end, they all have their own reasons for being on Wikipedia, but they all belong here. Payneos 23:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Since this has largely turned into a mess and the votes are more or less tied, I'm closing this as "no consensus". This has been an example of what an AfD discussion should not be. A place in Wikipedia is not a prize to be granted to cool shows or groups, or to be denied on the basis of dislike for a group of fans with nothing better to do. The article should be renominated a couple of months from now; in the meantime, the fans should do a better work of finding references and tidying up the text, and the detractors should amass clear arguments based on policy and which do not resort to the word "cruft" or insults of any kind. There. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Christian Textbooks (ACTS)[edit]

Company that operates a couple bookstores and publishes religious texts. No results for "Africa Christian Textbooks" in major African news sources in LEXIS-NEXIS. Very few Google hits. Andrew Levine 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks legit. Fails WP:CORP but CORP is very unyielding for small companies in out of the way places. I would vote weak keep, but the article itself is not stellarly encyclopedic. -- cmh^TC 04:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. WP:CORP doesn't make reference to any particular country, and coverage by Nigerian sources is no less satisfactory than coverage by any other sources. What is unyielding is FUTON bias, but that's nothing to do with WP:CORP and everything to do with how well editors perform research. WP:CORP even makes special note that published works in all forms are acceptable. Uncle G 11:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a legit company, but not notable enough, I feel. The article has the strong aroma of being an ad about it, too. Lankiveil 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete per cmhBenon 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability ReverendG 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Kappa 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete NN company. Arbusto 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Of Empires[edit]

Non-notable game that has not been released, that may change names, also published by a NN company. Prod removed by author. Wildthing61476 04:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. eaolson 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a release date of "some day", this article defiantly fails WP:CRYSTAL BALL.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- cmh^TC 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TBC. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 11:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Norbo Porfton 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom ReverendG 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mango juice^talk 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Random[edit]

Non notable musician and director. He had one film in the Brampton Indie Arts Festival [23], a local festival in Canada. Aside from this, the article contains his likes and dislikes, mentions of other films that I can't find on IMDB or elsewhere, and an indie album that I can't find anywhere either. Google reveals mainly Wikipedia mirrors and Brian Random's accounts on other internet sites [24] Samir धर्म 04:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I'd suspect that this were a vanity article. --Dennis The TIger 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave It perhaps the author of the page was overly ambitious, but their heart was in the right place. Simple editing will do. -Jkazoo 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio. ~~Agree likely hoax.~~ Ok, maybe its not a hoax. I still would vote delete because the article just doesn't ring true, and the subject seems non-notable... some citations on some of these claims might help. -- cmh^TC 04:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Hoax [25] -Jkazoo 04:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Major revisions with cites sorted. -Jkazoo 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, fairly sure it's not a hoax. Notability is borderline, but I'll err on the side of caution. Lankiveil 11:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The subject in question exists. However, I don't see multiple non-trivial independent sources establishing the verifiability or importance of the person- the Brampton Guardian is a local newspaper, and the Toronto Star article is not provided and I can't find it. The music does not pass WP:MUSIC, and the film has only been in one minor local film festival. Also, it should be noted that all major edits have come from one IP range, which strongly suggests vanity, especially considering some of the edits concern unverifiable speculation (such as his current productions) or his personal opinions. --Wafulz 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wafulz. —dustmite 16:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)delete[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to not be a hoax, , if he has in fact been the subject of an article in the Toronto Star, I'd consider that criteria to meet WP:BIO. -- Chabuk 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, notable enough for WP:BIO. Barely. RFerreira 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The toronto star article is here (I had to click this link and reload for some reason.) It does not look like he is the subject of the article to me, although admittedly I can't see the whole article. Anyone know anyone who has a year's subscription to this archive service? -- cmh^TC 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wafulz. Arbusto 02:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully prepared to believe that he exists, but existence does not automatically equal notability, and I don't see a convincing case here that he's passed any of the benchmarks that would equal notability. Delete. Bearcat 02:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A filmaker/author whose work is easily accessible and written about in major publications has no place here. Delete
- One article in the Toronto Star two and a half years ago, which wasn't even about him per se, but simply included a brief bit about him, does not make him notable, because if that's the only major press coverage he's had, anybody who didn't actually see that one article that day has no other way to have heard of him. And how accessible is his work, exactly, considering he doesn't show up on Amazon or Chapters, and a Google search on "Brian Random" brings up nothing but Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors and unrelated references to randomness posted by unrelated guys named Brian? Bearcat 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Resolute 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bearcat has it spot-on. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't buy The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion by Henry Darger on Amazon or Borders, either! But I CAN watch "Pop Carts" or "Ice Cold Heat" for free on the internet. I guess a person's only important if they've dead or made or are able to make money off their work? In that case...Delete.

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIPAA security risk assessment[edit]

This page contains no useful content; the topic is well summarized (and more appropriately addressed) at the HIPAA page. Nothing links to this page. It was created by User:Supremusgroup, who has added a number of commerical external links for a website which he/she owns. Nominate for deletion for lack of content, no links to page, and apparent function as a commerical/advertising vehicle. MastCell 04:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. -- cmh^TC 04:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above reasoning. MastCell 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I say we give this the HIPAA-ho! Lankiveil 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC). (sorry)[reply]
Delete per nom and as highly superfluous. --Dennis The TIger 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of being an advertisement, lacks citations, and poorly writtent to boot.-- danntm ^T _C 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuda[edit]

Non-notable neologism with no assertion of notability not supported by reliable sources. Prod removed. cmh^TC 04:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added by 203.143.249.236 (talk · contribs) are real, but they make no mention of this concept. Searching for actual sources turns up nothing at all. Notability is irrelevant. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've never heard of this term, not really notable enough I think. Lankiveil 11:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Valrith 13:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save per This is ridic IBrooksBro This is ridiculous, Fuda is a common word often used in everyday conversation. If it is believed that it doesn’t exist, maybe you should go to ‘wikipeida’ and learn. If this site is about knowledge why try to defeat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.249.236 (talk • contribs) 2006-09-10 14:03:16
- Comment This isn't knowledge, and I, like most others, have never used "fuda" in a conversation. Nonsense is not knowledge. Danny Lilithborne 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Fuda is something that is commonly said, especially in pop-culture. This week Scene magazine, an Australian music magazine is listing 'Fuda' as the word of the week. Enough said. User: LauraGalletly 15:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Whether a word is in use is an argument that is relevant to Wiktionary. Whether there can be an encyclopaedia article written about the concept that word denotes is the argument relevant here, and you have not refuted the assertion (which you can do by citing sources — real ones, not just random articles in the hopes that no-one will check) that this article is unverifiable — i.e. there is no source material on the subject of fudas. Uncle G 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant google hits besides Urban Dictionary, which is the perfect place for this word. The article did make me giggle though -- what a terrible acronym! Dina 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Ergative rlt 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete joke/hoax article. My Alt Account 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as per Pavel Vozenilek. DS 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astat[edit]

Per the article, two "internet trolls" came up with a word, and think we should recognize it. I disagree. WP:VAIN, WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, and the ever popular WP:NFT. -- Fan-1967 05:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir 05:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry :( --A.ward 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly useless article about an irrelevant neologism. Lankiveil 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Astatine as name used in several languages (de, da, cz, hr, no, pl, sk, su, ...). Pavel Vozenilek 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - a combination of incoherence/nonsense claims , attack (a6) note the references to "clit and tit", totally unsourced allegations of womanizing, tawdriness, etc, and also notability (a7) is somewhat asserted but not very clearly. Is bordering on a vandalism page. And finally, it was going to get deleted anyway by overwhleming consensus. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sommi[edit]

Attention Closing Admins!

The entire mess below only contains 11 votes (10 delete , 1 keep), so it's not actually as bad as it first looks! The rest is mostly spam, primarily originating from a (now banned) single-purpose account and repeat blatant vandal user:Hanseh, and a few anon accounts (presumably his sockpuppets). To see a version of this discussion that ONLY CONTAINS THE VOTES without comments/exposition, please see this link. Your attention is appreciated. My Alt Account 04:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally deleted as a speedy and reposted; I re-nominated it as a speedy, but after considering author's argument on the talk page, I decided it's not actually a speedy candidate. In any case, I still think it should be deleted. Author compares sommi to Emil Christensen, but has not actually provided any outside sources which the latter has. My vote is Delete and protect against recreation. Danny Lilithborne 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete He doesn't fit WP:BIO Wildthing61476 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added official links to the tournaments he participated in. Outside sources have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanseh (talk • contribs)

Note from the real sommi: This is Sam "sommi" Abdow and I give permission for this user to establish a biography on my famous Counter-strike career, which has spread throughout Sydney and the rest of Australia. I also condone the use of listing my personal acheievements and also making references to my career.

Comment It's not a matter of permission. Danny Lilithborne 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it a matter of then? Could you please tell me. "but has not actually provided any outside sources which the latter has." I've provided many outside sources now, are you willing to change your mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanseh (talk • contribs)

Keep it. Sommi is a good friend of mine, he will want his achievements to live on forever. - Monique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.79.238 (talk • contribs)

- Note: Above is user's first contribution to Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 05:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' No. I still don't think he's notable. This discussion needs more people to weigh in. Danny Lilithborne 05:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and salt the earth. Enough already. My Alt Account 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States."
Sommi has played in a fully professional league, named the Electronic Sports World Cup, as well as the CPL http://www.thecpl.com/, Cyberalthete Professional League. He has participated in the highest level of e-sports, online and at various lan competitions.
"Above is user's first contribution to Wikipedia." How is that in anyway relevent? It's actually sommi, and he's making a fair, and calm comment.
"Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." - Sommi has appeared in various Counter-Strike movies including "AusLegacy 2006", "PIL Season 1 (pantheon invite league)", each with countless thousands of downloads. If you require a link, I will find you it.
"Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - As already stated, sommi has achieved renown or notoriety in his field of expertise.

i know sommi, he's reknown in australia, this is an accurate page about him - ~~Jeremy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.133.73.2 (talk • contribs)~~ :Forged signature by User:Hanseh. --ColourBurst 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed, why is this page up for deletion? He's very well known in australian counter-strike. - ~~Danny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.79.176 (talk • contribs)~~ :Forged signature by User:Hanseh. --ColourBurst 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The fact that all these editors know sommi is more reason for this article to be deleted. You friends of sommi should look at WP:VAIN. Also, not to be derisive, but these anons look like sock puppets.

Delete - None of the sources given are real, therefore the entire page violates WP:V. Thus delete - all these people are being jackasses too, so I don't mind crushing their spirit. Fresheneesz 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note above, sources are real. check them yourself. This page does not violate WP:V

Comment I support the decision of this wikipedia article. DeegaN_ STEAM_0:0:5639

Comment How are the sources given fake? " * Official Sommi website

   * Official Blog of Sommi
   * Official Australian Counter-Strike Forum
   * Home Australian Counter-Strike Forum of sommi
   * ESWC
   * [5] iStarZone Counter-Strike tournaments.
   * [6] IHS Counter-Strike tournaments.
   * [7] CoreGames Counter-Strike tournaments.

" Those links are 100% legit. Check for yourself. Ask any member of the Counter-Strike Community.

None of the links mention sommi. Therefore they don't verify the information on that page. Show me multipe reliable sources that verify anything in the "Other" or "Controversy" header. There is none. Fresheneesz 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note about vandalism in this afd - User:Hanseh just deleted my comments and forged some others. I'm not sure what is the best way to go about restoring the discussion, but will an admin please look into blocking this very fine user? Or would someone familiar with that process give me a hint as to how to get it started? My Alt Account 07:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Account, i'm sorry if i did delete your comment, the page was laggy for me, perhaps your comment didn't update for me? I'm not sure, i didn't mean to delete anything. Furthermore, all i did to the comments was add their ip to the show you that they are separate users from across the country. I asked them personally to give me their ip from www.whatismyip.com and i added the ip on the end as some of them weren't fimliar as to how to add comments properly.

Also, I hope you all consider "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAIN#Does_lack_of_fame_make_a_vanity_article.3F

Oh, apology accepted. And I'm sure your finger just slipped when you did this and this. Have a nice day, and remember to sign your comments. My Alt Account 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sommi is easily persuaded by people who have alterior motives and use him in achieving them.

Delete not notable. VegaDark 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, protect against recreation. User:Guyanakoolaid
Delete nn. Lankiveil 11:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with delete - but non notability is not a good reason. This page violates WP:V plain and simple. None of the links given on that page mention a "sam" or a "sommi" and are mostly just homepage links. These don't verify squat. Fresheneesz 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database comes up with zilch about him. A search for Sommi Counter-strike on Google News archive [26] comes up with nothing. There is very little to verify the contents of this article. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DXRAW 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as meeting the Speedy delete criteria. No assertion of passing bigraphical requirements Peripitus (Talk) 07:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure vanity. Ohconfucius 08:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoreHTTP (web server)[edit]

An article about a piece of HTTP server software. No evidence of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 400-odd Google hits [27], for an open source package, this is not unusual though. Mainly just download mirrors, by the looks of it. Not yet notable enough, I think. Lankiveil 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not Freshmeat. Pavel Vozenilek 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of such kind of servers (no more than 1000 lines of C code), not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennis The TIger 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough although it may be in the future Benon 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - cheating is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nguyen[edit]

There are many Steve Nguyen out there such as myself. And I know I've done a lot more than this guy ever will. He's not a famous actor. He's a want to be famous actor with an unsuccessful company as far as I can tell. This is for his own self glorification and commercialization. I'm a CEO of my own company. Does that mean I get a Steve Nguyen page too? No, it's ridiculous. I've been googling for his company. It's not even an important company. It's his own two bit startup operation. Additionally, his first name is "Steven", not Steve.Eggy7726 05:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously nominated in November, 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen. Result was Keep. -- Fan-1967 05:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per previous nomination, vanity page for sub-minor actor. Pete.Hurd 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Voice acting should not be trivialized. Note the nominator's edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Nguyen&oldid=74843418 which is either a misguided attempt to be funny or something worse. Perhaps a disambiguation page is required to sort out the different people named Steve Nguyen. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator seems to be a newbie, I'd cut him some slack about not knowing about process or how to act toward WP properly. I think he's right about the inappropriateness of this article. Bwithh 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No trivialization, but no notability either. Vanity. User:Guyanakoolaid (Restored this vote from vandalism -see below Bwithh 01:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep, as mentioned above. PJM 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This vote was apparently copied from the first AfD by the numeric vandal. [28] William Pietri 02:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, voice acting is probably notable, but the article needs a major rewrite, the stuff about his company is not really relevant or notable, and sentences like "He is one of the youngest entrepreneurs to become a success." stink of vanity. Lankiveil 11:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Voice acting in video games is generally not notable. Anyway, see my research on his game credits below. Bwithh 18:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voice acting can certainly be notable; look at the guy who sang the Grinch song. But just because you have done some voice acting, does not make you notable in and of itself! In this case, fails WP:BIO; the WP:VAIN doesn't help in the slightest either. Eusebeus 12:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resoundingly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep on account that it sounds kind of like the nom is bothered by people with the same name as he. --Dennis The TIger 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stricken and changed to Delete. Reading the comments, I'm tempted to look into this and see if it's worth a speedy. --Dennis The TIger 05:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same reason as mentioned above. --Xinyizhang 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for uploading a copyvio image, this user's only edits are to this article. [29] William Pietri 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Strong Delete Fails non-negotiable core policy WP:V (main claim for article that he is notable CEO/entrepreneur is unverified), and substantially fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Strong suspect as vanity article. His voice acting in video games (which games? what roles? the article doesnt tell us - they may well be obscure freeware games and/or minor roles (or it could be a completely false claim) and there needs to be verifiable reliable evidence that he has a special reputation for voiceacting and is not just a random guy - why do people assume without evidence that this claim about voice acting is something impressive or "probably notable"? As for the TV appearances, all his acting credits are as obscure extras[30] - "crowd member", "Asian kid") and his small company are certainly not encyclopedically notable based on the article details. We also have no evidence that he is a prominent young entrepreneur (has he been profiled in Fast Company? Did he ever get a mention in the Wall Street Journal? Has he ever been interviewed for Wired?). I checked out his personal and corporate websites - I came away with the impression of a guy with a huge ego, rather than indications that his company is a serious enterprise. IMDB profile only lists non-notable short films mostly yet to be released (no, an IMDB profile does NOT guarantee notability - their control for entries (esp. for in-production entries) is not stringent... one of the films listed as a production credit is The 1 Second Film which is a gimmicky way of raising money by letting anyone sign up as a producer in exchange for $ (there are 5000+ producers) ). Taken the article at face value (ignoring verifiability concerns), the subject appears at best to be of modest local community or campus level of notability Bwithh 18:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup Regarding Steve's game credits, here is listing under that nameon the game credits database, Mobygames:[31], which shows that Steve has primarily worked as a playtester ("quality assurance") - which is about as far down the video game developer food chain as you can go. His single production credit is of dubious signficance, as he is also credited as a playtester on the same game (any game producer for a major company worth their salt does not get credited for "quality assurance" on his/her games, though obviously he playtests them). In any case, the video game career as a whole is not notable enough for a video games trade magazine, and certainly not enough for an encyclopedia. As for the voice acting, he was involved with sound on a couple of games - as the dwarf voice in Stonekeep[32] (along with 20+ other people doing other roles. dwarf appears near the bottom of the voice credits). He was also one of three people on the sound effects team for Battle Chess 4000[33]. I can't believe this article survived its first afd. This subject of the article is a vain BS-er, frankly. Bwithh 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please per truthbringer toronto see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen Yuckfoo 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first afd discussion was closed poorly by an admin who did not exercise any judgement (afds are not determined by simple voting, but this one was treated as such), and that discussion would be a candidate for deletion review. The only evidence given by the keep voters in that first afd to demonstrate the subject's notability was a page from an extras database detailing his roles as an extra in a few tv shows, for which sometimes he was totally uncredited in the official show credits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting and publicity service for egoistic bit-part actors/wannabe entrepreneurs. Bwithh 21:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Nguyen_Steve_-102962.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.4.36.229 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 September 2006 UTC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSteve_Nguyen_%28Second_Nomination%29&diff=75012380&oldid=75006216

Comment since anyone can add their own profile to Zoominfo for free (as the very link provided above says "This summary was created using information submitted by this person" i.e. by Steve himself), and claim whatever they want to claim in their zoominfo profile, this is hardly a reliable source. Even if it was, the zoominfo profile seems to use the same content as the wikipedia article, so there's no convincing assertion of encyclopedic notability. I suspect that Steve has been spamming his puffed-up resume to every online site he can Bwithh 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I the only one to notice that the IMDB page doesn't seem to correspond at all with the article? The pictures are of this guy but none of the credits remotely match; no performance credits are listed at all, which raises some verifiability issues. Is it possible IMDB mixed a producer and a minor voice actor of the same name? Fan-1967 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think its possible though not certain - IMDB is not well policed and not very reliable unless its a famous celebrity page which would be policed by their agent. it may be that this Steve Nguyen signed up for the 1 second film and got mixed up with another guy) Bwithh 23:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on films I looked into this further, and I think this article's Steve Nguyen is the same person listed on IMDB. However all the films are crappy independent films, and when I looked up the film "Star Child: The Beginning" for which he has an associate producer credit, I found that I too could be associate producer on this film for the modest sum of $49.95 (scroll down linked page). There are already 13 "associate producers"[34], so its kind of crowded (though no uh... screenplay writer or director yet apparently). I think Steve is an film extra who puffs up his resume by buying into film projects like this Bwithh 23:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Nguyen film "credits":

- - - - The 1 Second Film, Executive Producer: Paid for this credit, like 5000+ other people
        
        Changeling, Associate Producer: production company listed for this film on IMDB has minimal website [35]
        
        Survival, Exec Producer:IMDB lists a ton of producer credits - another indie film funding scam
        
        BackRoads, Producer Another indie film funding scam with a ton of producer credits

... you get the idea, I'm not going to go through the whole list. IMDB is simply not reliable for non-celebrities Bwithh 23:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, he has zero verifiable, legitimate credits. Delete. -- Fan-1967 23:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete anity'ish page, and not that notable Benon 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bwithh -- Whpq 00:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 00:52, 11 September 2006 aznrtn1:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- CommentThe above keep vote by aznrtn was actually originally posted by the vandal User:68.4.36.229 (presumably same person - aznrtn account has one one edit in history only).[36]
Delete - I'd been holding back on this one, but Bwithh convinced me. My Alt Account 01:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism and AFD manipulation by Anonymous IP User:68.4.36.229 This user has been attempting to subvert this afd discussion. Not only has he/she voted keeply more than once anonymously, they have deliberately altered the vote of a delete voter to keep not just once but twice, and they have attempted to remove the original nomination, not just once but twice. Steve, if this is you doing this - stop, it's pathetic. Bwithh 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:68.4.36.229 likely to be Steve Nguyen himself, or else close associate This interview] of Steve on a website which is yet another film producer credit scam] Steve is involved in (so he's involved in, what, 7, 10, more?) has Steve himself saying that he comes from "a town called Palos Verdes Estates, located about 25 miles south of Los Angeles." Running a WHOIS on the anonymous vandal shows that IP is located in "Rancho Palos Verdes, California" which is located about 25 miles south of Los Angeles[37]. Bwithh 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:BIO and a tragic example of WP:VAIN. With thanks to Bwithh for shoveling out the bullshit. William Pietri 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to second those kudos. The immature behavior here is way beyond the patience of most people, but somebody needs to stand up to it. Thanks Bwithh. My Alt Account 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks very much, guys! Bwithh 16:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.90.88 (talk • contribs)
delete. Hope he goes far. He's not there yet. There seem to be a few people by that name, and none of the info on his article appears to be verifiable per WP:RS. Let's decode his career path per the article:

guest appearances on several television shows, commercials (already dealt with by Bwithh above)
has designed numerous websites for Nickelodeon and the SciFi Channel
done voicework for various PC and video game companies, (already dealt with by Bwithh above. Some voiceover artists are indeed very sought after and are big earners, but he doesn't appear to be one of them)

all before attending high-school in 1998. He currently attends the University of California.

His company is a Microsoft Certified Partner (like almost everyone who does any computing work), providing web design and development for a variety of clients, "from niche-market businesses to members of the Fortune 500". Without being disparaging, Nickelodeon is a member of fortune 500 company Viacom. Stickblade.com has no alexa rank. Ohconfucius 09:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment note that his company's article was deleted back in Nov 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stickblade Incorporated, note vandalism in that AFD too). The material has recently re-appeared in what we might call this "user page". Pete.Hurd 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant self-inflation per Bwithh's research. ~ trialsanderrors 08:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bwithh. Arbusto 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Tyrenius. ColourBurst 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy (warez)[edit]

Non-notable game ripping/warez group; I couldn't find anything about them on Google (of course, it's a difficult subject to search since I kept getting Final Fantasy sites) or on the sites for the groups in the article. Crystallina 05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and currently defuct group. Only 862 relevant Google results [38].--TBCTaLk?!? 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn group. Lankiveil 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. --Dennis The TIger 16:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Chapel Middle School[edit]

Article is about a nn middle school, an reads as bordeline nonsense/attack page. Speedy and prod removed by author, whom I suspect is a studetn of the school. Either delete or someone with better knowledge of the shcool do a SERIOUS re-write. Wildthing61476 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill middle schools aren't encyclopedic. Shimeru 06:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. My Alt Account 07:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content save single sentence and infobox, Wikipedia is not a directory of schools. Catchpole 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable school. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn school. Lankiveil 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, nn school. Eusebeus 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete looked like an attack page to me... RN 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless ReverendG 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed all the attacks and nonsense, which left one sentence. Herostratus 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an okay stub now that can be expanded. The school has about 1200 students and is certainly notable. bbx 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Some of us believe that these "run-of-the-mill" topics are in actuality quite important. Bahn Mi 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Also meets the failed/proposed/ever-changing WP:SCHOOL guidelines with 27 non-trivial LexisNexis hits. Please contact me if you would like to assist me with the expansion of this article, there is a lot of content available to work from. Silensor 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. I believe this article should continue to exist to allow for organic growth. --Myles Long 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALKIVAR™ 22:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor, the school has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself (taken from WP:SCHOOL). RFerreira 00:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been redone and has numerous references. School made headlines with the arrest of ten year old. Clearly this is on its way to becoming a model for our encyclopedic middle school coverage. I would ask Delete "voters" and the nom to update their comments to reflect the new article. --JJay 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Content remains trivial, requires a little bit more than fluff about butter knives to make an encyclopedic article. How about a separate wiki for schools? Catchpole 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Schools are an important part of the Wikipedia landscape, much like train stations and small towns. If you disagree, you are welcome to WP:FORK at any time. Silensor 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seeing has how the article has been greatly cleaned up, and I am glad for that, the article merits some inclusion. My original AfD was to stop the petty vandalism going on on the page, and to HOPE some kind souls would take notice and clean it up. I felt a cleanup tag would not have sufficed in that case. I wish to withdraw my nomination, and believe the article should stay. Wildthing61476 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the noms withdrawal. Arbusto 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per pretty much insurmountable WP:BLP concerns. Guy 09:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fortuny[edit]

This page is problematic for many reasons. Right now it is poorly referenced, partially POV and original research and has problems with the rules covering biographies of living persons, but mostly the guy is just not notable. A search for "Jason Fortuny" craigslist gets only 115 hits and only 32 judged as unique by Google. Only 3 hits on google news is really pathetic for something claiming to be a current event, and of those 2 are from blog-columns rather than traditional newspaper columns. Maybe there will be some future reprecusions and interest, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and right now I don't see where this event/person merits encyclopedia coverage. Better just to eliminate a problematic article about a non-event. Delete. Dragons flight 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. And brace yourselves for the forthcoming parade of meatpuppets. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. The article is going to serve as nothing more than troll-bait. He's notable only in the sense that he has brought out a potential legal issue. In that respect, it might be conceivable to give him a short mention in Privacy, but nothing more than that. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Alphachimp. -- ArglebargleIV 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the citations are from blogs and forums. No Reliable Sources. Wikipedia is not for documenting the blog topic of the week. Fan-1967 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Being a sleazebag and possible sociopath does not mean you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, unless there have been some changes to WP:BIO that I do not know about. -- Kjkolb 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to submit article

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Opie and Anthony[edit]

Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-04. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony.

Very crufty. Do we really need seperate lists for all the friends of a celebrity? What's next? Friends of Jerry Seinfeld or Friends of Johnny Depp?--TBCTaLk?!? 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony--TBCTaLk?!? 06:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the {{afd}} tag from Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony, as I cannot find any evidence that any move was made to actually nominate the article for deletion beyond the above mention and the adding of the tag to the article page. In any case, it was just nominated a month ago, and the consensus was keep. --Aaron 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The cruft is strong with this show. Wildthing61476 06:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both Abuse of Wikipedia as free webhost for fan group Bwithh 06:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-This content has no encyclopedic value and should be removed by all means necessary. What the hell is this crap?? Opie & Anthony dont need 10,000 different linking pages on Wikipedia. If they want to list Friends, then do so on their main Wiki Page. JPJ 05:21, 11 September 2006

Delete all per above. MER-C 10:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Should anyone do their homework, both this and Enemies and former friends of Opie and Anthony were both featured in the main Opie and Anthony Article, which is where all of this will be put right back into should this article be deleted. The Opie and Anthony article as a whole is way too long and that is why these various offshoots were created. Using the precident set by List of celebrity guests on the Howard Stern show and their Wack Pack Article, I think that it is fair for a radio show of equal or (now possinly greater) magnitude to do the same.

On a side note, "Friends of the Show" are an important part OF the show, which is why if it's not here, it will be back in the main article for its' relevance. Payneos 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a waste. This isn't an article, it's a list of nobodies. Billy Blythe 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge this stuff back into Opie and Anthony article. If Howard fans don't like it in there, they can put it on their T.S. list and mail it to the chaplain, as Stephen King would say.--XMBRIAN 15:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The friends are a major part of the radio show, and merging this list back into the original article would make it too long. --Bill.matthews 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and Semi-Protect main article per Payneos' notes. The importants may or may not be undeniable to the fans, but this is taking up unnecessary space. --Dennis The TIger 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete both being that this information is unencyclopedic Opie and Anthony-cruft. This information belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both Unverifiable, Wikipedia-editor-selected, and therefore unencyclopedic. Fancruft, in a word, and it doesn't belong here. --kingboyk 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Billy Blythe. Lazybum 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and per my comments above Ohconfucius 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of claim of "Fancruft" but no specific cited example. This article mirrors that of the Wack Pack Article almost to a T in its' purpose, it will be made again in some form when it grows large in the main Opie and Anthony article. Deletion is whole-heartedly unnecessary, redundant, and destructive. And so far, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Payneos 19:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe we need to whack the Wack Pack next. By the way, arguing "An article on X exists and therefore an article on Y should too" doesn't work. Lazybum 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm arguing on precident. The articles I've cited have been around much longer with little or no scrutiny. I think the articles all SHOULD remain, as I would fight for the Wack Pack as well, despite my not liking them personally, because it is a major part of Howard Stern's Show. That aside, there still has been no specific attempt to make the article better, just claim fancruft and move on. Payneos 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precedence counts for very little in Wikipedia, since it is a binding decision. Note that Wikipedia:No binding decisions is a part of the official policy. Lazybum 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename or merge back into Opie and Anthony. I get the feeling this article would be less controversial if it wasn't named "Friends of O&A", which implies pure listcruftiness. I think, given its length, it's a legit fork of Opie and Anthony, but it should probably be given a more generalized name like "O&A show characters". But if there's no consensus on that, I vote to merge it back into the main article. PS: You guys suck. --Aaron 20:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's fair. We can probably work on that should this survive deletion. Payneos 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not of wiki value. Arbusto 02:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clements University and St Clements University[edit]

~~Non-notable diploma mill.~~ This school is NOT accredited and cannot be verified per WP:V and WP:RS. Website claims that are ~~"accredited" by~~ members of unrecognized "International Council for Open and Distance Education," but this an accreditation mill and the website displays false information regarding its recognition.

The Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization lists St. Clements University as unaccredited.[39]
St. Clements is called a "degree mill" by List of non-accredited colleges/ universities by State of Maine (see listing 564)
A "who is" check shows this Carribean school's address is a PO Box in AUSTRALIA with an IP in that country (prices in US dollars).
Delete per the St. Clements University's description, "As a commercial university, St Clements role in education is to assist candidates obtain the qualifications they need."[40] This ad fails notablity per WP:CORP and WP:V.
"St Clements University" gets 340 yahoo hits with the majority of hits being promotion in online forums. Arbusto 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete similiar article St Clements University. Arbusto 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawal nomination with the good work of TheronJ. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions moved to talk page. Arbusto 01:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not an editor's responsibility to go out of their way to verify an article, notability needs to be provided by the author Guyanakoolaid 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What does notability have to do with this discussion? Also, we should make it our responsibility.Bagginator 09:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply What does notability have to do with this discussion? Everything! And I have better things to do with my time than check accreditation for diploma mills trying to prove legitimacy through wikipedia. From WP:V: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.Guyanakoolaid 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Final comment for now I contacted IFA and asked them to provide verifiable evidence of accreditation for St. Clements University. Hopefully I will receive a response before this AfD is finalized and we can know for a certainty one way or the other.Bagginator 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: 1) No legitmate (Cambridge, Oxford, UL, UK, IE) accredited British institution appears on the lists. 2) Three state agencies note they are unaccredited. 3) We have NO WP:V on what this is. 4) No notablity is offer with WP:RS. 5) One US state government called this a diploma mill. Arbusto 16:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one good reason for keeping these sham institutions: since Wikipedia has such a high google ranking, anyone looking for information can see the WP page and learnt that it is, indeed, an unaccredited diploma mill since it's page will appear as # 2 or 3 probably. They can then further find out what a Diploma mill is by following the links and, if truly ambitious, discover the entire shady world of such "institutions." That said, Wikipedia is not here to provide caveat emptor services and this place should be expunged. I should know: I have a Master's degree in "Life Experience." Eusebeus 12:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even weirder, it appears that last year they were based in Namibia. Currently I'm on the fence, but if we can produce a good article with verifiable information, I think it should be kept. If somebody cleans this up so the article is an accurate portrayal of their dubiousness, I'm all for a keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane for the kind of turnaround I'm thinking of. William Pietri 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - 1,830 google hits. Educational institutions are notable. --Ineffable3000 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: What WP:V source do you have that it is an educational institution? Arbusto 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Look here. It is an educational institution. Even though it is not accredited, it is still an educational institution. --Ineffable3000 21:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  - How is that a source to prove it is an educational institution? That's a bio of a person who claims a degree. Someone from Africa in a position of power with a fake degree isn't new. For example, Riek Machar (VP of Southern Sudan) in this Dec 2005 Sudan Tribune article states Machar "Received Doctorate from University of Bedford, England in 1984." The problem is no such school exists called University of Bedford, which was a diploma mill operation that would predate the degrees it sold. Arbusto 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Diploma mills are notable too. Leave the page and state that it might be a potential diploma mill. --Ineffable3000 03:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
      - Comment: It is notable? Does it meet WP:V? Those are reasons for keep, and no sources have been convincing of that. Arbusto 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:V. --Ineffable3000 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-researched nom. Note that 1150 general Ghits for "st. clements university" boils down to 213 distinct hits, including some odd ones for "Superior Moulding". Fails WP:CORP for lacking the usual third-party non-trivial articles, no awards, no... oh never mind. Tychocat 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep St. Clements University and delete and redirect St Clements University. First, as a general matter, the university is notable to anyone who's considering getting a degree from them, or to anyone who sees a St. Clements degree on a resume, and we should keep the page as a resource for them. Second, under WP:CORP, it's notable because it's been discussed by John Bear in his book and by at least three US states, which should qualify as "consumer watchdog organizations" in this context. It's true that it's a scam, but that's all the more reason to preserve the information. TheronJ 14:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should have pointed that I've added some sources to St. Clements University. I encourage people to take another look at the page. TheronJ 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more links to the St. Clements University page. It still needs some polishing, but I think it's a notable non-accredited university. (For example, it turns out to be Senator Kim Carr's favorite example of a degree mill during Australian Senate hearings). TheronJ 15:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with TheronJ. If we are going to do lists such as List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning that include this school, then I would think we would need articles on the components of said lists - in fact it is a quasi-requirement of wikipedia list guidelines[41]. This nom is a frequent contributor to various diploma mill lists [42] , but wants this deleted because it is a "non-notable diploma mill" and "can not be verified". If that is true, what is the point of listing it? Why are we doing lists of diploma mills (all of which are by definition more or less "non-notable" and unverifiable) in the first place? --JJay 19:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually TheronJ did major cleaning it up and kindly contacted me my talk about the changes. Don't personalize matters with vague inferences based on false assumptions. Arbusto 00:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what you mean by "false assumptions" or "personalize matters" since I merely quoted from your deletion nomination. Please review the list guideline page linked above. --JJay 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheronJ, thanks for doing the hard work. Wikipedia could use more editors like you. Bagginator 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a gold star for TheronJ and his fantastic cleanup. This is the best possible outcome of an AfD. William Pietri 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhiox[edit]

Delete seems like advertising to me Xorkl000 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails the WP:ADS and WP:SOFT criteria. Only 323 Google results [43], few of which are relevant.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert. VegaDark 07:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. MER-C 10:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert article. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the buzzwords! the buzzwords! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH! Lankiveil 11:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. —Khoikhoi 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two cent[edit]

Non-notable website & forums. Fails WP:WEB. Various Google searches don't bring up much that's relevant to this website. Zip on Alexa: [44]. (I know, Alexa isn't exactly scientific, but an even borderline-notable website will at least have something on Alexa). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really hurt to keep the page there? It might not be a hugely notable site, but that doesn't mean people might not want to wiki it some day. -47.46.45 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.93.41 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Classic speedy A7. However, if they agree to make me a mod on their forums, then keep and expand. My Alt Account 07:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VegaDark 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not an A7 because A7 is only for people, clubs, groups and bands. MER-C 10:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:WEB. Th ε Halo ^Θ 11:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Two-cent piece (United States coin) Billy Blythe 15:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Billy Blythe. I can make an argument that it DOES hurt to keep the page here, but... another time. Danny Lilithborne 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Plains Riding Centre[edit]

Reads like a brochure, plus I don't think it holds any more importance than any other riding school in Australia. -- Longhair 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 08:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, obviously fraudulent, as Dubbo has no tourists (seriously though, nn business/company). Lankiveil 11:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No results on EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database or Google News Archive see [45]. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--cj | talk 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM. SM247^{My Talk} 06:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Reviews[edit]

Nonnotable website like million others. Does not meet WP:WEB Spearhead 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not assert notability. MER-C 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline notable, I have read the site before (although not regularly). Lankiveil 11:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

comment "I have read the site before" doesn't sound like a valid argument for notability. ;-) Spearhead 14:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website does not meet criteria set out in WP:WEB- the article itself mentions that the site is small, and it is written from a personal perspective. Anyway, Alexa ranking of about 750k, no awards, no news mentions, 33 links from other sites (mostly blogs and the like). --Wafulz 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non and in accordance with WP:WEB --Charlesknight 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wafulz. And I haven't read the site before. --kingboyk 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor_Sherman[edit]

Does not seem to have done anything individually significant, warenting a bio. artical, and was most likely created by a fan of VALVe KittenMya

Speedy keep for now - looks like a nomination by a single purpose account, see Special:Contributions/KittenMya. MER-C 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I've always just used my IP, mostly. :) --KittenMya

I don't see why MER-C's point automatically disqualifies KittenMya's nomination. Bwithh 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' who? By the article's own admission, his musical talents are non-notable (no releases, what sounds like a casual band), and simply being an employee of a notable company is not notable in and of itself. Lankiveil 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. —dustmite 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per User:MER-C. --Dennis The TIger 16:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting error corrected. --Dennis The TIger 16:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting criteria of verifiability or importance in either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. While this nomination is the user's first contribution, this is not criteria for a speedy keep, especially considering that the article itself asserts a lack of notability. --Wafulz 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the obvious obvious problems with the nom, no valid assertion of notability for this person. Fan-1967 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Article fails to assert or show notability as musician and as game developer . Bwithh 19:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 20:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN, possible speedy for absence of assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. 133 unique out of 375 Ghits for "taylor sherman" + guitar. Mostly relating to his participation in fora and has also transcribed music for guitar. Ohconfucius 09:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A6) by Edgar181. MER-C 10:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (average joe)[edit]

Contested Prod (of a contested CSD). Basically, if the title doesn't speak for itself I'm rather stunned. More seriously, there's no assertion of notability anywhere in the text (which is why it was originally CSD-listed), which has some elements of an attack page every now and then - consider, for example, the title of the image. Before anyone says WP:SNOW to me, the only reason why this is here gumming up the works is because the editors have a tendency to remove tags before admins get there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom with emphasis on the attack page. My Alt Account 09:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Although in the circumstances this AfD was correct. --Richhoncho 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, attack page and no assertion of notability. So tagged.--Andeh 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD A7. Being head of a music school is not an automatic assertion of notability. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen sutherland[edit]

Please see the history before making a decision. Somebody has come in 3 times to delete either part or all of the article. I suspect it's Mr. Sutherland himself. The previous article probably fails WP:BIO and definately WP:V. If it is Mr. Sutherland trying to delete this article, withoout knowing what to do, then I hope he will come here and respond.--Richhoncho 09:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there any reason this shouldn't be speedied? What am I missing? My Alt Account 09:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is possible that the request to delete is vandalism - in which case a speedy would be highly inappropriate. --Richhoncho 10:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the fact that Mr Sutherland doesn't want an article about himself grounds for deletion? I do not believe so. I don't know how notable this man, or his music school is, but the simple fact he wants to blank it isn't a good enough reason to wipe it, I think. Lankiveil 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- No, but lack of notability is. Delete
Response. Article would still fail WP:V in any event. I brought it here because I was uncertain and needed other editors' opinions. --Richhoncho 12:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neon Ninja[edit]

No evidence of notability. Appears to be some unpublished short stories. Deli nk 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, at least 2/3rds of article is copyright notices. Lankiveil 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Va0e 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we are not the copyright office and shouldn't be a repository of copyright notices. Also NN. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lank. —Khoikhoi 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nyuck nyuck. Danny Lilithborne 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - cheating is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Gods[edit]

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

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

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

Appears to be a hoax or seriously doubtful future possibility. 22 unique hits on google, none serious. [46] Deizio talk 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly redirect to Ragnarök though there may be other mythologies employing this motive. Could be short article, once. Pavel Vozenilek 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among the other mythologies is ancient Greek: battles of Titans, such battle is central theme to the Aztec religion. Pavel Vozenilek 12:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article? The subject of the article in question is an unrealeased computer game, not a mythology. For the purposes of this process the subject matter of the game is unimportant. Deizio talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Ragnarök is a "battle of Gods". The gane is absolutely irrelevant, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a hoax, probably an April Fool's Day joke from some gaming magazine. The only substantial links I can find on this is an invalid MySpace page and Wikipedia itself. —dustmite 16:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am part of the art development team for this project. How would the administrator want it proven that this is real? Look at the history of this page. It has been vandalized almost every couple days. Some people feel threatened by this game and do not want it to come out, so it will be attacked often. It is an idea that people love or hate fanatically but it is not being made to upset people though we know that will be hated by insecure belief systems. It is being made to educate and promote free speech, an equal forum, and that people need to chill out in general and laugh. The attention negatively or positively proves its relevance. —the preceding comment is by 68.5.137.93 - 19:24, 10 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about future events or products should assert the notability of said topic. As this is not a sequel to a notable game or a release by an established software house that makes the burden of proof especially important to establish. Reviews in mainstream gaming publications (PS3fanboy appears to fall someway short of that) would be a good start. You can find more info at WP:NOT, WP:SOFTWARE, WP:RS and WP:CITE. It may well be that this topic falls short of the standards demanded by Wikipedia and you should wait until the game has been released and enjoyed commercial success. As noted above, the subject matter and anecdotal opinions of unknown individuals are unimportant in the process of establishing suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Deizio talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete it if you want; you are the administrator but there are more than dozens of unreleased games on wikipedia that are not sequels.

If a game is formally announced this disclaimer should be sufficient: {{future game}} The Battle of the Gods staff is made of ex-Blizzard, ex-EA, ex-Quicksilver Games, ex-Rockstar SD, ex-Interplay members. I think this game is something people will want to know about from an objective source. —the preceding comment is by 68.5.137.93 - 22:18, 10 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts! *2nd vote by anon account on this debate Deizio talk 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until we can verify the material from reliable sources. As Deiz says, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and even the makers of the game admitted last month that "completion of the game [...] could take years". [47] We can afford to wait a little while to have an article on it. William Pietri 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely associated with Japan. The developers are American. ColourBurst 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. BTW, the developers should just bite the bullet and put in Allah, not like Westboro and Catholics are gonna cut you any slack for putting in God and Mary. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Danny Lilithborne: The article and the disclaimer states changes are inevitable. The player character list is not the full list, just what's been formally announced. Has nothing to do with he relevance of the article though. Phantumm 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unrecoverable crystal-ballery. The article's defenders make interesting claims that are simply not verifiable. Come back when/if they are. My Alt Account 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like an Advertisment to me of a game whose future is unknown. -- Marwatt 18:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it. Duke Nukem Forever is an unreleased game and Tapeworm (band) is a permanently defunct band project, but they are projects I have inquired about on Wikipedia. If there's an interest it should stay and there is. Phantumm 15:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with interest. It has to do with verifiability. Duke Nukem has a whole array of references, but this article has two references, one of which is a blog and the other, a myspace site. ColourBurst 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not blogs, there are 2 reputable interactive entertainment news articles not counting the internal company site with the classified password posted and active myspace account. More has come and will come. Duke Nukem Forever production was announced since '97 (9 years ago). Battle of the Gods was announced early this year. Of course there will be over 9 times more refferences. The official beginning of production of both is unknown. And Tapeworm (band)? 68.5.137.93 - 09:47, 13 September 2006 UTC:

The topic here is what? verifiability. the fact that it exists on wikepedia is verifiable, correct? now if deleted, will the website, myspace acct., and current articles be deleted as well.....nope. the existence of a game in development will still be current, but wikepedia/battle of the gods will not. keep your sight/site current. to be a "doubting thomas" does not change the fact that this game is in development and has generated interest. furthermore, it is "crystal ballery" to claim that the game is not in development. but your crystal ball is cloudy. i prefer the magic eight-ball myself and my sources say no, do not delete. Zee fuggernaut 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Zee fuggernaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..

I suspect you are a little inexperienced with the standards for content inclusion on Wikipedia. Indeed, your contribution record indicates that all of seven of your edits have been to this AfD (5) and the page in question (2). I would also be inclined to suspect you are very closely acquainted with User:Phantumm and the anon account above. Generally speaking the opinions of users with that kind of pattern generally hold little or no weight in debates like this. I recommend broadening your experience of editing and would suggest that if you're really keen on this that you edit the article in question to bring it inline with WP standards (links above). Interested parties come to AfD trying to save their creation more than you might think, and they all find out that the same rules apply. Deizio talk 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under CSD A7 by AlisonW. MER-C 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Kurgan Crusade[edit]

Non-notable group with 18 pseudonym-listed members, appears to fail WP:CSD#A7. Bob talk 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually around 200 members of the Sideshow Freaks message board that have signed a petition to have that Medieval Kurgan created. That may be to low a number for Wikipedia, but that number has come in just 3 months. The importance is that Sideshow release a "modern" Connor Mcleod, "Origins" Connor, "Modern Duncan McLeod, "Origins" Duncan & a "Modern" Kurgan...The one obvious omission is "Origins" Kurgan...Or Medieval Kurgan as we like to call him. All told Sideshow has sold around 3,000 of the Highlander based figures. WIth the creation of a Origins Kurgan the line would be complete.

This article most stay there ,as it is informative and as actually a purpose and a raison-d'etre.Altough the Crusade is fictionnal,it is really a phenom in message boards history.I say it must stay.Thank you Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdarkness03 (talk • contribs)

Merge with The Kurgan or userfy. Marasmusine 11:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also about to suggest merging it with a Sideshow article, but that company doesn't seem notable enough to have an entry. Marasmusine 11:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Ludwig & Cellatar[edit]

Non-notable. Doesn't get a single google hit, and considering its a new musical instrument you'd expect at least one. —Xezbeth 11:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, couldn't find a thing related to it, WP:V, WP:HOAX, possible vanity. Prod would've been best here I think.--Andeh 12:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andeh. —dustmite 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.

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

The result was Delete spam. El_C 07:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast Health Centre and User:Sunshinecoast001[edit]

This appears to be an advertisement for a non-notable place. These two pages are User:Sunshinecoast001's only edits. --NE2 12:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as spam. MER-C 12:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - article is spam, user is a spammer. --Dennis The TIger 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both. Article does not meet requirements of WP:CORP or WP:V. User page violates WP:USER. --Satori Son 17:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spam spam spam, spam spam spam, spam spam spam (spam spam spam), spam delete (both of them). Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. per above. —Khoikhoi 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It strikes me that this is not the place to discuss the article itself, as it should be (and was, by this nominator) the subject of an AfD. Somewhat confusing to have an article listed both here and at AfD. Agent 86 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, while the AfD template on the article page and the MfD template on the user page both link here, the individual listings are transcluded on the proper pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 10 for the article and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for the user page. A little odd to combine the two discussions, but I think it works okay in this case. --Satori Son 18:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user page as spam. Delete article as an advert, unless some notability can be found and added to the article. -- Dcflyer 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was Delete. Hoax; copyvio. El_C 10:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Callach[edit]

This appears to be both hoax and self-promotion. Author claims this is an Irish holiday, but I couldn't find it mentioned in any of these sources:

Google hits for 'callach +holiday'

Ireland September Calendar at timeanddate.com

Public holidays in the Republic of Ireland

Druids#Calendar

Celtic calendar

Irish calendar

Coligny calendar Valrith 13:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless author (or some kind soul) can source this. —dustmite 15:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Strangely the author never linked to the website http://www.callach.com/ for this event (albeit a US celebration). I couldn't find anything via Google, but I've asked at WikiProject_Neopaganism and Irish Wikipedians' notice board. -- nae'blis 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I've never heard of a holiday by this name celebrated in Ireland. From [48] it seems to be a hoax. Demiurge 19:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dppowell 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + copyright vio (Gnevin 22:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete hoax. Camillus (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual record[edit]

The terms "virtual record" and "virtual album" are neologisms coined by the one artist mentioned in the article header. Yahoo and Google searches show results for each term, but most, if not all of the results use the terms to mean something else. Virtual album hits mainly refer to photo albums, while virtual record hits refer to music, but not specifically to albums only availble online - some hit "virtual record labels" and some refer to "virtual records" as any digital version of an album (whether it is released in CD for as well or not). While the list of internet-only albums is a fair list, the actual purpose of the article, to define the terms "virtual album"/"virtual record" is the problem.

Google: virtual album | Google: virtual record |Yahoo: virtual album | Yahoo: virtual record

(Delete as per nom) TheHYPO 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate title, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep as the title, while not perhaps the preferred nomenclature, does convey reasonably well the article's purpose. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

I should note that the article is being used as a reference on pages for such albums which is what caught my attention. Album types are being changed to "virtual album" and "virtual album" is being replaced in the intro paragraph of the articles, while it is pretty unnecessary since almost every such article also includes the description that the albums can only be downloaded(such as most of the iTunes Originals articles) which to me is a problem since the term is not recognization by most people and isn't even a real term that is recognized by the industry or public - it's simply a term that this one artist coined (the person who created this article seems to be a fan and also created the article for the same artist's virtual album). Perhaps the article should be moved instead to List of downloadable-only albums or something like that, but I think that references to the terms virtual album and virtual record don't belong on wikipedia since they are not actual terms recognized by the public or any official music body that I can find. TheHYPO 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NEO. William Pietri 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one person's attempt to popularize a neologism. Danny Lilithborne 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments by the three people above me. My Alt Account 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't mind the neologism, but it seems a pretty unmaintainable list, and not encyclopedic. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HardwareLogic[edit]

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

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

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

No assertion of this forum's notability per WP:WEB. It claims to be popular, without providing any statistics or reliable sources where the forum has been mentioned. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, and I can't find any. Alex rank of 255,907. A Google search and a Googlelink search don't persuade me of notability under WP:WEB either. Good luck to them in getting there, though. William Pietri 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Will change vote to Strong Keep if they agree to make me a mod on their forums. My Alt Account 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Register and we'll talk to the boss about it - that is, if you're a man of your word =P Yurimxpxman 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:V and probably a few more Localzuk ^(talk) 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all...I understand people have the right to edit content as this is an "open source"...but I take serious issue with someone editing the description of my site, talking about is financial status (which is inaccurate, and to be completely honest no ones business), and someone's demand that they want the content deleted unless they are made a moderator of my forums. A basic Alexa search of our site notes a ranking of 190,000 (we all know Alexa is worthless) and for a site thats been active 9 months, we are doing quite well. I find it comical that someone (who obviously has an alterior motive here) has taken the time to find my site, and ask for its deletion. I also take issue with th editing done. The page was obviously hacked as content was deleted and inaccurate information, and blatant lies were posted. I also take strong exception to people demanding to be made mods of our site.....There is absolutely nothing being sold on HL, and in fact we only exist to help people make good buying decisions—the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 03:19, 13 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

I hate ruining my own joke this way, but... I was joking when I offered to change my vote in exchange for modship. My Alt Account 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We are not discussing the discussion of the deletion of your site, just the article on Wikipedia. As Yurimxpxman recognized, My Alt Account was kidding when he offered to change his vote; we'd tar and feather him if he actually did something like that. And Alexa rank when you're that low is pretty volatile; it's now at 272,631. Although I assume good faith, it's not impossible that the nominator had some sinister motive for this. But that's why we have this review process. I'm glad you're feeling you're doing well, and encourage you to keep it up. I hope you'll be wildly successful so that one day your site clearly qualifies under WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Regards, William Pietri 03:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL..."I'm glad you feel you're doing well"...talk about a condescending attitude......ridiculous that a site dedicated to helping people, and not making money, can be deleted....—the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 03:43, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Hi. No condescension was meant; sorry if I came across the wrong way. William Pietri 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, type "HardwareLogic" into google, and you'll see over 24,000 hits......not too bad for 9 months work

Delete - fails WP:WEB.-- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the qualifications of the persons who have listed the site for deletion....not a single person who has any knowledge or experience pertinent to the site or its content....... —the preceding comment is by 70.189.173.65 - 07:11, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Commment for my fellow pedants and nosey-parkers: the anonymous commenters have made a number of edits to existing comments [49] [50] [51] that are technically improper but seem to be well-meant, so I'm letting them stand. William Pietri 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and Strong Keep) It's interesting that the general concensus thus far is that HardwareLogic fails WP:WEB (Notability), but one of the criteria (and only one needs to be met) is that "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." HardwareLogic's content is, in fact, distributed via online publishers that are both well known and independent of the creators. Some examples include [H]ardOCP, PlanetAMD64, PCStats, TechReport, ReviewsHQ, ViperLair, Bjorn3D, TechPowerUp, TechArp, TheInquirer, MadShrimps, NTCompatible, and a number of other well known tech sites to the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) PC community. All one needs to do is Google some of the reviews posted on HardwareLogic and a list of multiple independent sites appear. Taking that into consideration, this clearly should qualify under #3 in the WP:WEB criteria. —the preceding comment is by HL Supporter

Is it possible to find out who edited our content before we were nominated for deletion? I'd be interested in finding out who vandalized our site and added dishonest and inaccurate content

That's what that history tab on the top of the page is for. If something is wrong, just fix it. BTW, do you see why find it odd that you don't know about checking page history, but you do feel qualified to argue about whether or not wikipedia policy suggests that HardwareLogic should be deleted? Why don't you stick around the place for a while, and learn the ins and outs, before you accuse so many people of bad faith? My Alt Account 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep i personally believe that hardawrelogic is a legitimate Wikipedia entry as is clearly meets the following criteria:

1. the entry clearly meets the first entry in the Wikipedia criteria for web content which states: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion excludes: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4] Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." To prove my point, do a Google search for any of the hardware that the site has reviewed in the past 9 months and you will get thousands of hits of reviews. that clearly falls under "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms"

2. The entry also meets the third requirement under the Wikipedia criteria for web content which states the following: "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." planet amd64, tech report reviewshq.com and the modding den have all posted links of HardwareLogic's work on their site. In fact if your feeling froggy, do a search for a review for the Seasonic M12-500 modular power supply. HardwareLogic is the ONLY site that has currently reviewed this piece of hardware (as of September 13th 2006)

In closing I believe that this was a direct attack on HardwareLogic's credibility as an honest home-grown review site for the beggining computer enthusiast. I feel that this was purpotrated by a larger and more influential site that has began to lose ground and its credibility in the begginer's audience. Such attacks are childish and only prove the maturity level of "other" sites.

To those who support us, we thank you for your continued support and dedication to the HardwareLogic community. —the preceding comment is by 65.191.49.254 - 07:48, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Strong Keep I cannot believe someone on wikipedia would do this. Completely ublievable/

Strong Keep While I don't claim to know the ins and outs of wiki editing I find it difficult to believe that so much attention and discussion has ensued over such a harmless wiki page. Regargless of whether it "qualifies" according to these statutes written in legalese, who cares? It's not hurting anything. It's just a biography of a review website. The only people that should really care at all about it are the creators and members of the site. To be honest,and though I don't speak for everyone, I don't think it really matters if this page gets deleted or not, it's neither helping nor hurting us. What gauls me is the fact that people will expend so much effort into either discrediting us or removing us entirely from here. To me it seems that the wikipedia community is less focused on being an open vessel for knowledge as much as it is a contest to see who has a better grasp of the "policies and guidelines." 71.70.182.15 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Drew-and-not-U[reply]

Strong Keep If a site is going to be deleted, let's make sure some of those [i]really[/i] crappy sites get booted, not Hardware Logic.

13sep06 [email protected]

This is a very good site for beginners such as myself. I fail to see the logic in deleting this site. There is a active community and reviews of the latest hardware available. JokerHL 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If HardwareLogic is under consideration for being deleted for not conforming to Wiki's requirements, then shouldn't HardOCP, Anandtech, Tom's Hardware, and GameSpot?

HardawreLogic is like most all the other computer enthusiast review sites on the internet in the sense that it reviews computer hardware not for profit, but for the education of readers. HardwareLogic, however, focuses on helping beginners get their feet wet in computers as a hobby, or just to help answer questions for someone with a problem. Computer enthusiasts of all levels gather in the forum community to discuss the review articles, guides, and whatever else may be relevant technology. I see no reason why HardwareLogic should be deleted if the other other "identical" sites are allowed to stay. 66.227.222.173 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)HL patron[reply]

No. Those review sites are NOT identical in that they're each about 100x bigger than HardwareLogic. If HardwareLogic rises to the same kind of prominence those sites have, it, too, will have an article. Hope this makes sense. If not, read WP:WEB. My Alt Account 21:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not the content and criteria that matter, but the 'size' of the site? I don't know, on my monitor, both HardwareLogic and those others look the same size. Or if by 'size' you're referring to popularity, then where in the WP:WEB does it state a specific hit count for a site to eligible? My interpretation of the WP:WEB is that there are content requirements, not popularity requirements...HL Supporter

Thanks for registering; that makes things easier to follow. They are notability requirements, not content requirements. Popularity is different than notability, but related: reliable sources tend to cover things that are popular more than those that are obscure. This is unfortunate; you can look at John Kennedy Toole to see how fickle fame and notability can be. Had events gone only a little differently, his Pulitzer-winning novel could have been lost forever. On Wikipedia we don't document things that should be notable, but only those that have been noted sufficiently that we have enough reliable sources from which we can verify the information that we provide to our readers. I hope that helps. William Pietri 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A8 by User:Uncle G. ColourBurst 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stratex Networks[edit]

Spammy contested prod. MER-C 13:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revise. Passes WP:CORP. Tagged as advert. —dustmite 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Blood Runs Black[edit]

Delete - AfD - Nonconformity to WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC. No notability, only two website profiles available on the band (MySpace and Metal Archives) which can be created for or by anyone in less than a day. --Danteferno 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Should we also consider their album, too? MER-C 13:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What a stupid name. Blood runs red, not black. It can, however clot black in large enough quantities, kind of like a black pudding. Clotted black blood isn't going to run anywhere. It's like Jell-O. Also, any band described with "-core" after their name is destined for failure because genre bands don't last. Ten years, and they'll be forgotten. Billy Blythe 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dustmite 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Khoikhoi 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Billy Blythe (burn!) Danny Lilithborne 00:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance (As Blood Runs Black album)[edit]

Album by band (As Blood Runs Black) being nominated for deletion. --Danteferno 13:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crappy looking album by stupid band. Billy Blythe 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC as a non notable album by a non notable band. Th ε Halo ^Θ 16:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist)[edit]

nn Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 13:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Wikipedia precedent, anybody on TV is important. If she were fictional, she'd be even more important. Billy Blythe 15:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such precedent. Instead of citing a nonexistent precedent, please instead explain how this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. —dustmite 15:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)After further research, I recant. Weak keep as she is a familiar face on a major network. —dustmite 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because someone fails WP:BIO, it doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. There must be room for exceptions here. Morover, WP:BIO is a guideline, which means that there is more room for exceptional cases (unlike policies). Various other factors have to be taken into consideration as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She's on tv for a significant time. I think that makes her notable. Green caterpillar 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent face on a national cable network. Fan-1967 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please passes bio as prominent face on national cable network for significant time Yuckfoo 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got...Keep as on-air personality on a national network. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Weak Keep She has been awarded with the AMS Seal of Approval and has been on television for a considerable period of time (since 2000). Moreover, the weather channel is a well known television network. The information in the article is also verifiable as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. RFerreira 05:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep though I disagree that in AfD's "anybody on TV is important". Arbusto 02:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lioni.com[edit]

nn website/company.--Sfffb 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sfffb 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article list clear under companies. All the listed categories might not be correct, but that can be adjusted. Like moving them only to the Japanese categories section. The article is only explaining the company name. There is no link to the company and the article tryed to be objective in writing. If there is anything in the wording to be change than please suggest it or do an edit. All over I think it can stay, so keep it. First-timer 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that you should say, but haven't, is to cite sources to demonstrate that this company satisfies our WP:CORP criteria. Wikipedia is not a business directory. You have cited no sources at all, either here or in the article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for pointing out WP:CORP. Under these terms the company and its name do not meet the creteria at this point. So I removed the article contant. First-timer 05:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jusjih 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this article only talks in substantial detail about the name, so qualifies as CSD A1. Danny Lilithborne 00:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also agree with Speedy. Neier 00:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since the article content was removed First-timer 05:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Vahdany[edit]

The article is about a non-notable person who runs a non-notable website. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Jusjih 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. Author of article is none other than Sharam Vahdany (I think). --Nishkid64 16:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dardorosso 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Storkk 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelus Church[edit]

article has no references and the existence of this church cannot be verified. Also, the lack of concrete details related to the biography of any of the founders or location of any of these supposed events Freder1ck 15:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. All Google hits for the church's full name and its nickname "Angelian Church" are to Wikipedia and mirrors. --Metropolitan90 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Excluding "Wikipedia" from my google searches, I got no results. The article has no references to support any statement in it. Smells so strongly of hoax that I've marked it as such. GRBerry 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loserz[edit]

A DRV consensus overturned the previous no consensus closure of an AfD on this article in light of rampant spamming. Please ignore the previous AfD. Per the DRV, this page will be semi-protected to help curb spamming. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nomination. Alexa ranking over one million. JIP | Talk 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - easily fails WP:WEB. My Alt Account 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't assert notability, so we have to hunt for it. Actual Alexa rank is 373,608, which is still not so great, and neither a Google search or a Google incoming links search looks much better. Seems like a nice comic, though. William Pietri 22:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — This webcomic seems to be around for a while. Not much notability though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Pietri's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - I used to be a fan of this comic, although I haven't read it in over a year. I thought it was pretty good at the time, but it's not especially notable in comparison to other webcomics. --Cswrye 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still does not meet our content policies as it is unverifiable through reputable third-party reliable sources and Wikipedia is still not an internet guide. No amount of longevity, alexa rank, or google hits will help us write an encyclopedia article (unless some reliable sources turn up in Google, of course). -- Dragonfiend 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute no sign of notability or popularity. No external sources. I cannot believe the gulf that exists between websites and webcomics on Wikipedia. Pokemon-Safari.com, Alexa rank sub 10k deleted, Final Fantasy Shrine sub 10k deleted, Encyclopedia Dramatica 23k deleted. Yet we have to relist a nothing webcomic. - Hahnch e n 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Semi-protecting AFDs is a great idea. RFerreira 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as previously mentioned. How can it be claimed that because I support the article being kept that it is spam?! Also previously mentioned that the alexa ranking that you're using is wrong. This is because an alternative URL was used, with the most commonly used one: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=loserz.scribblekid.org being ranked 140,000. Nowhere near the 1,000,000. I also don't see why you should block those who want the page saving, so you can achieve your agenda. i.e. I protest strongly at your move to block the objectors so you can get what you want, it is absolutely against the spirit of wikipedia Fyver528 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. As you can see on other website AFDs we generally let all and sundry participate unless they're egregiously ill-behaved. In this case, the previous AfD was too messy to call, so we've restricted this to established editors. [52] That seems regrettably necessary to me, as those commenters didn't seem to take time to understand how or why we make these decisions. Speaking of which, if you'd like to persuade people to change their votes, your best bet is to find reliable sources with verifiable information, hopefully showing that the site meets WP:WEB. For example, I see that The New York Times has had articles on Megatokyo and Get Your War On. As you search, you should keep in mind WP:NOR. Hope that helps, William Pietri 22:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a reasonably popular webcomic at one point. The fact that the artist updates much less frequently today (and that therefore the site is not visited as much) should not take from the notability that it had. When looking at alexa ranks, please note that loserzcomic.com is a relatively new url, & the comic has been accessible by multiple urls since it left keenspace.--Isocyanide 16:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my other reason (Yay! Revote!) --FlareNUKE 05:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic Keep It's already been passed over for deletion once before, hell that was only a couple of months ago. It's been proven to be popular and noteworthy and deserves to remainon Wiki. Don't let some whiny attention whore troll get his way.--Foomartini 14:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy and speedy delete the redirect. --Ixfd64 17:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius wiedemann[edit]

Unnotable. Green caterpillar 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly an A7. Speedy Delete. --Dennis The TIger 16:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting error corrected. --Dennis The TIger 16:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the author's user page. He's new to Wikipedia. Cut him some slack. Just move this page to his user page and give him a heads-up about this so he won't do it again, and all is fine and dandy. --Nishkid64 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a free user page hosting service. To warrant having a user page, an editor must have made contributions here. This user has exactly 1 contribution: This article. Uncle G 17:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. CSD A7. kingboyk 21:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFC HUCKNALL[edit]

You'd expect a notable football team to have some level of coverage on the internet, but 31 Ghits seems to indicate otherwise. NN team, NN league. Changed its name "to distance itself from being known as a pub team..." Andrew Levine 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This football team just isnt notable for inclusion in Wikipedia at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even close to meeting guidelines of notability for English football teams. - fchd 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Intolerant Quran verses[edit]

The title alone suggests that this is unsalvageably POV. It might be a copyright problem with its source also, but I brought it to AfD because I don't think the topic will work, whether or not the material is re-written. Joyous! | Talk 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemably POV list with little prospect of becoming an article of encyclopedic value. Oldelpaso 16:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very POV and OR. -- Jeff3000 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others say, for POV and OR. Might as well just go for Religious verses written when God was having an off day. William Pietri 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV. Camillus (talk)
Delete or create Contradictory Bible verses. Danny Lilithborne 00:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much of a POV problem to be worth trying to salvage.-- danntm ^T _C 00:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Offensively POV ReverendG 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written, sourced article. Please explain this POV objection so many people have. --Pussy Galore 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PoV, who is to say it's intolerant? HawkerTyphoon 12:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. --Mmx1 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list verses without context is just an indiscriminate collection of information or comment. This also seems to be original research. BTW There is already a Criticism of Islam article. Seano1 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Merging may be a good idea, but not forced by consensus, but this is a wiki.) Mango juice^talk 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1826 Miller[edit]

Delete non-notable asteroid, one of 137,000 listed at List of asteroids. I have no clue how a compelling encyclopedia article could be written about this or 99.9% of the other asteroids on the list. The only info about 1826 Miller provided in the article that is not already in the list is that it was discovered "at Goethe Link Observatory near Brooklyn, Indiana." But such info could easily be provided on the list itself, for every asteroid listed there. (I would have used "proposed deletion" for this, but I saw that many other non-notable asteroids on the list have links to WP articles, so I didn’t know if there was some precedent on this issue that allows such articles to be kept.) Pan Dan 16:38, 10 September 2006

Delete Just not enough information to warrant an article about it *yet* - Perhaps if soemthing notable was discovered about 1826 in the future it could possibly warrant an article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9121 Stefanovalentini (AfD discussion) was kept. (90569) 2004 GY14 (AfD discussion) was kept. 17823 Bartels (AfD discussion) was a sentence fragment when deleted, and that was the primary reason for its deletion. The new article was based upon the existing Polish Wikipedia article (see Talk:17823 Bartels). That gives a clue as to how an encyclopaedia article on this asteroid can be written that provides information not on the list. The Polish Wikipedia article on this asteroid is pl:1826 Miller. The list does not include any of the information that can be found in the infobox. This article is a stub. The Polish Wikipedia article proves by its existence that this stub can be expanded. We don't delete stubs that can be expanded.
Now that you have a "clue how a compelling encyclopedia article could be written about this", please help to write Wikipedia by adding and filling in the {{Minor Planet}} infobox for this article. Keep. Uncle G 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but, first, I don't understand why an infobox constitutes an encyclopedia article. Second, as far as availability of information goes, the info in the infobox came from somewhere (probably on the Internet), and it would be just as easy for users to find that info on the Internet as on a WP article. Why not do something like the following: make the names of the asteroids listed at List of asteroids link to an external webpage where the info can be found, instead of a WP article that copied the info from that webpage? Pan Dan 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of external web pages that contain the same information as in Geography of Italy. That is no reason to simply link from that article to those web pages, rather than having the information in the encyclopaedia article. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to make a collection of external links. Uncle G 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But we should question the value of a WP article where, as here, everything can be found in a single external link. Pan Dan 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - First: That's true of Geography of Italy. You haven't put forward any qualitative differences between the two. Second: You haven't actually pointed to this hypothetical web page. Uncle G 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The qualitative difference is in their notability. I'm not suggesting that the "single external link criterion" should solely determine whether a WP article should be deleted. (2) http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/ancillary/asteroid.tbl.html. Pan Dan 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I would add that info in the infobox doesn't address the question of notability. That the asteroid's eccentricity is x and its perihelion is y are details that simply aren't any more compelling than the size and weight of rocks in the Grand Canyon. Asteroid is a notable topic, and should have its own article. Rock (geology) has its own article. But neither individual asteroids nor individual rocks on Earth should get their own articles, unless there's something notable about them. For example, the asteroid with the largest, or smallest, known eccentricity could get its own article. But having an eccentricity of 0.0294383 just doesn't assert notability. Pan Dan 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because your concept of notability is entirely subjective. Notability is not subjective. We don't include or exclude articles on the basis of what individual editors personally find "compelling". That is a sure route to chaos. Uncle G 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, I have to ~~point out~~ argue that my concept of notability is in line with the consensus concept of notability that is central to many policies at WP, such as WP:CORP, and articles are deleted all the time on WP because of lack of that notability. ~~And the fact that the WP community has come to a consensus on what's notable and what's not in many categories (such as businesses), is evidence that notability is not entirely subjective.~~ Second, conceding for the sake of argument that the my concept of notability of many topics and facts is subjective, I would simply disagree that the data at issue here--numerical values of certain physical properties of a given asteroid--is even arguably notable. Such information has no relevance, or even potential relevance, to anybody (unless for example the asteroid is hurtling towards Earth, in which case I would certainly agree it's notable). Pan Dan 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The concept of notability embodied in our guidelines such as WP:CORP is not the concept of notability that you are employing. I repeat: Your concept of notability, based around what you think is "compelling", is entirely subjective. Notability is not subjective. Your argument that the data have no potential relevance to anybody is unsubstantiated, and I'm sure that there are astronomers who will disagree, just as there are entomologists who will disagree with those who, like you, might state that articles on obscure species of beetles have no potential relevance. We aren't here to judge knowledge. (The concept of notability employed by WP:CORP et al. doesn't involve Wikipedia editors making personal judgements, notice.) We are here to collect and to summarize it. Uncle G 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your earlier statement about notability, and if I had properly understood your earlier statement, your clarification wouldn't have been necessary. I apologize for that, and I have amended my response above appropriately. I submit that the concept of notability I am applying to 1826 Miller, is not subjective, but in line with the concept of notability embodied in WP:CORP and other established guidelines. Those guidelines rely, as you write in your essay, on the axiom that "A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable," and the world at large doesn't deem data notable about an obscure asteroid, per my earlier points and the following replies to your response re: potential relevance, astronomers, and entomologists:

Re: potential relevance, I would argue that the burden is on the other side to demonstrate the potential relevance of data about an asteroid, one of >100,000 listed here at WP. Re: astronomers and entomologists: It's the job of some astronomers to catalogue and publish data about asteroids, but even they wouldn't consider (would they?) that data "notable" in the sense required here. Likewise, it's the job of workers at government and other bureaucracies to compile and publish data about local businesses, but even they wouldn't consider (would they?) that data "notable" in the sense required here. In the latter case, WP:CORP has already spoken: that data's not notable. Likewise, a WP article containing nothing but the information about the classification of a species of beetle, should be merged with a list of beetles. Pan Dan 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a celestial body: Res ipsa loquitur. Human beings have been inquiring about these things from the beginning of time. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Keep - The subject of notability is indeed important. But a comparison between rocks in the Grand Canyon and asteroids in orbit around our sun is not a solid comparison. Listing the individual rocks on 1826 Miller would be the same as listing rocks in the Grand Canyon (or any other part of earth that has rocks. Each asteroid has a unique set of properties, orbital period etc. That is information that might be looked up by someone. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. I would say that each individual asteroid should have its own page if the relevant infobox is fully filled out. I should think we would be well served if someone wanted to put all that information in wiki - because the more facts we have, the better a reference tool we become. I fully agree that if the pertinent information is not filled in, then there is no point in having a single sentence about an asteroid though. --Exodio 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real place. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Not on the List of noteworthy asteroids, and I'm not seeing why this merits an article more than the 339,376 known minor planets or the 5,000 more being discovered each month. Once people move in, though, I look forwarding to an argument over which major streets in the habitat deserve their own articles. William Pietri 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and William Pietri. Lazybum 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G, asteroid about which enough is known to merit its own page. An encylopedia containing only "compelling" articles is a luxury for people who don't need it. Destroying all "non-compelling" content lets down of all those for whom it is a necessity - especially people without internet access (WP:1), and people who don't speak Polish and need us to translate for them. Kappa 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be X-hundred thousand asteroids, but the number we know enough about for a full article is far, far fewer. This is one of those, and as such is encyclopaedic enough to survive AFD. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If an object is listed in Wikipedia, it should have some kind of scientific importance. The entry should provide a reason why the reader should care. Listing statistical information (such as the orbital parameters) does not constitute scientific importance, nor does it compel the reader to be interested in the object. By this criteria, I would also say that (90569) 2004 GY14 and 17823 Bartels should also be deleted and that 9121 Stefanovalentini should be made a redirect for Stefano Valentini. George J. Bendo 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are responsible for putting the sum of human knowledge in my hands, I don't want you destroying things you don't think I should care about it as long as it's reasonably plausible that I might care about it. Kappa 02:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not what I meant. Certainly, the knowledge should be kept somewhere on the internet. However, Wikipedia policy states that its entries should be encyclopedic, "not an indiscriminate collection of information". The entry for 1826 Miller or some of these other asteroid entries does not include anything beyond what can be found in an astronomical catalog of data. It should still be listed in catalogs, but it does not have any value in Wikipedia. (But it looks like I am in the minority anyway and it will stay in Wikipedia. It is not too bad if it stays; Wikipedia contains entries that are much more dysfunctional than this one.) George J. Bendo 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More significant than Squilliam Fancyson but perhaps not Gary the Snail... --Bcsr4ever 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge per Carton's suggestion below) Fantastic debate between Pan Dan and Uncle G. However, a named, measured astronomical object seems to me to be inherently notable for the sum of human knowledge. Kubigula 02:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Given that

(1) "Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource" (WP:NOT; my emphasis), and

(2) All the data on obscure asteroids in Wikipedia articles, except their discoverers and place and time of discovery, is at the astronomical table on that single ~~public~~ university website I referenced above, http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/ancillary/asteroid.tbl.html:

Can we do the following: maintain the List of asteroids on Wikipedia; include on that list the discoverers and place and time of discovery; put on Wikisource a copy of the Caltech website; and delete all articles on obscure asteroids at Wikipedia? (Of course, we would keep any article on Wikipedia that has more to say about an asteroid than just raw data, e.g. Ceres.) Pan Dan 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of this. George J. Bendo 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it seems Cal Tech is private (have corrected above). Guess that means the website is not in the public domain? or maybe even if it was a public university the website would not necessarily be in the public domain. Pan Dan 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caltech is private, but IPAC is a NASA science center. IPAC maintains lots of public archives, although some may seem difficult to understand for non-scientists. George J. Bendo 13:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of asteroids. It is (theoretically) expandable, but I'd be hard pressed to think of how, and more to the point, if the current content amounts to no more than the elements of a simple listing or infobox, then it belongs on a list, not as a separate article. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something can be found to establish that the asteroid is notable. Otherwise there is no potential for this article to grow beyond a stub. Remember there are over 136,000 numbered minor planets, of which most are only known by their orbital elements and a rough estimate of size. We are an encyclopaedia not an astronomical catalogue! Chaos syndrome 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Calton. This is valuable information to Wikipedia, we should store it somewhere. bbx 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all except guthrie.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burns (footballer)[edit]

Liverpool reserve/youth players. Fails WP:BIO as has not made any competitive first team appearances. Multi-nomination. I have avoided those players in Liverpool's Youth Cup winning squad beause they need separate consideration. I also nominate:

Delete all. BlueValour 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. BlueValour 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guthrie, delete the rest. The rest are just youngsters who have never played professional football, but Guthrie actually has a squad number [53]. Revisit if he is released without playing any games. Punkmorten 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep Guthrie, he has a squad number. Smith and Mannix are on the official squad list, and Mannix had a squad number (38), and there is some confusion over whether he still has it. You can still buy a shirt with Mannix 38 on it. I'd support the other two being kept aswell, although it's harder to make a case for them. ArtVandelay13 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Guthrie - unless a player has a squad number (new incoming transfers notwithstanding) it is impossible to claim that he is a first-team squad player. Apart from Guthrie, they all fail WP:BIO and precedent set by other AfDs. Qwghlm 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have withdrawn Guthrie. BlueValour 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Never played first-team football. Catchpole 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropia[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. The article originally had only one single in the discography, but the article creator "TheMisanthrope" added two more after I added prod template. Advertisement for a non-notable band. Edit: Also, there are two Misanthropias on Metal Archives and neither one is this. Prolog 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, three singles does not a WP:MUSIC pass make. Perhaps later they'll meet the guidelines but as of right now they haven't even released an EP. Crystallina 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheMisanthrope: I didn't want to tell that the new EP has been already recorded because it was supposed to be a surprise at our comming show with one of the biggest metal bands in Israel and already toured Israel when Legions was released.

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As usual, notability seems to be established by gazing into a crystal ball... My Alt Account 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. enochlau (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael stein[edit]

Non-notable, joke article. None of the first 100 google hits refer to this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLand (talk • contribs)

Delete. This unsourced article reads like an inside joke. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN and WP:V. Michael 17:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete hoax. Camillus (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as a hoax, which is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Danny Lilithborne 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by User:Tom harrison. ColourBurst 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Gardenswartz[edit]

Non-notable, limited and unintegrated Google results. --DLand ^TALK 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable even in its original form. eaolson 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A7, no assertion of notability in the current or any previous version of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yank sox 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avigil Chaitovsky[edit]

Non-notable, joke article. 1 google hit. --DLand ^TALK 17:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. Michael 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, and warn article creator, whose only contributions are to this, Michael stein and its talk page. Both his articles are currently up for AfD for similar reasons. --Metropolitan90 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remove ReverendG 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A8 by User:Uncle G. ColourBurst 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhava[edit]

This company doesn't seem notable - Google returns only one relevant hit. Also, this article is extremely POV. --Ixfd64 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom And V Videos[edit]

Also:

Dance Off
Phantom And V: The Movie
Phantom (Phantom And V Videos)
Phantom And V: The Movie
ZShadow
Image:Phantom And V- The Movie Poster.gif
Image:Phantom & V.gif
Image:V From Phantom & V.jpg
Image:Phantom From Phantom & V.jpg
Image:Phantom & V Videos.jpg

Does not meet WP:WEB, has no google results, links all point to the videos themselves, NOT NOTABLE. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NN. Michael 17:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website does not meet guidelines. Good idea to bring ot AfD. J.J.Sagnella 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why, thank ya kindly. Just doin' my job, pardner. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per issues with notability, verifiability, original research, WP:WEB, etc. Also, move images to WP:IFD. --Wafulz 18:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All images are up for speedy deletion for source/copyright tag issues. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTubecruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic ReverendG 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as an example to bear in mind of how vandalism can cause the loss of articles. The article had been vandalized, and the vandalized version then speedily deleted, twice, by administrators who hadn't checked far back enough in the article's history to see the non-vandalized version. I've undeleted and reverted to the non-vandalized version, which is about the Mark Barry who is a member of BBMak. Uncle G 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barry[edit]

I can't say that I'm quite familiar with the football fan scene in the UK, but this is surely a hoax article. It starts out by claiming such things as "the killing of a police horse in Glasgow which dared to stand on his foot", "the night he copped off with Kate Moss" and then just devolves into further nonsense. This explanation is probably much more than the article deserves. WP:BJAODN with it. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look like the page was actually about a musician, and someone vandalized it to be about some imaginary football player. It's been reverted, so the AfD isn't necessary now. —NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I'd have closed this discussion already if it hadn't been for the edit conflict. ☺ Uncle G 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suta-Raito[edit]

Fails WP:WEB (per User:Merope). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising —Xezbeth 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)how is this japan related?[reply]
Delete vanity. Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Spooky Electric[edit]

Seems like it might be a hoax -- It gives a purported source but there are no Google hits that aren't Wikipedia mirrors. This despite being supposedly associated with Internet culture. Andrew Levine 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked and couldn't find anything. The only thing stopping me from agreeing with the nom is that one reference to an out-of-print, obscure book. Alas, it looks like the author of this article has only edited this article, making me wonder about WP:SPA. More info from anybody would be greatly appreciated, but if it doesn't turn up, I'll likely end up favoring deletion. William Pietri 23:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic's crew and passengers[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikisource might take it. -- RHaworth 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Transwiki as per nom Bwithh 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource as per General Slocum precedent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, wikisource:List of General Slocum victims was deleted at wikisource as reference data per policy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a memorial, and per nom. Camillus (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ReverendG 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenybopper music[edit]

del. Since the previous nomination in May ("no consensus") nothing was done to make the article acceptable. Mukadderat 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overly general, POV, and edits since last nomination have been recat and the like - not changes to improve content. Ergative rlt 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ding dong, the time is up. Lazybum 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chance provided ReverendG 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just closed Teenybopper as keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenybopper. You may want to consider a merge/redirect or similar at this point. --- Deville (Talk) 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a redirect "validates" the term. Why not teenyboper shoes, teenybopper fashion, teenybopper hairdress, teenybopper bike? the keyword here is teenybopper, if someone will want to search. If you find a reputable publication that actually describes one of these terms, rather than simply uses the word, then the article or redirect is in place. Otherwise ther is no sense to make redirects from all possible word combinations. Mukadderat 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayak for a Cure[edit]

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and not a soapbox (per User:William Pietri). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the guy who prod'd the page, I naturally agree. It's certainly a noble cause, but the event hasn't even happened yet, and I don't see any press coverage or other evidence of notability. There is press coverage [54] [55] [56] about a different "Kayak for a Cure" [57]; were we to cover one, it would be that one. But I don't think either one cross my line for notability. William Pietri 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. My Alt Account 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as agreed ReverendG 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall[edit]

Mall stub with no incoming links from article space, and no indication of what makes this different/notable from your average mall. Prod was removed and it's not a speedy candidate, so bringing it here. My opinion would be to delete, as it utterly fails to assert encyclopedic worth. -- nae'blis 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~At first look, Delete.~~ I'm glad to be persuaded otherwise, but as far as I can tell the most interesting thing about them is that they may have the last remaining web site to use blink tags [58]. William Pietri 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the comments of Kappa and dustmite, I'm changing to merge or delete. William Pietri 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malls are business that rent space to retail stores. No evidence or assertion of meeting WP:CORP. GRBerry 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, seems like an important part of retail in Clovis, California. Kappa 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:LOCAL. —dustmite 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of importance. Indrian 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, malls of this size are notable. This one especially for the people in Clovis, California. bbx 06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is notable with 26,000 hits [59] people will search this here Yuckfoo 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:CORP and lacking reliable sources.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on this page. Silensor 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 02:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Xezbeth 10:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoffmanns At Home[edit]

^{[Check Google hits]}Non-notable film. Not a single Ghit. Also listing the following related bio articles as also non-notable, failing WP:BIO (all created by the same editor, Nymski):

Emma Finlay
Dennis Riley
Edward Nyman

The only one of the above that has even a suggestion of notability outside of The Hoffmans at Home is Edward Nyman. It's claimed that he played a part in the movie V for Vendetta. However, IMDB doesn't have him here [60] or here [61], and there are no Ghits for "Edward Nyman" +Vendetta either: [62].--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't verify any of this either. Google has nothing for the title, and nothing related for the creator and "Tourette", "Tourette's" or "Tourettes". Barring citations from reliable sources, out it goes. William Pietri 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we just have to assume that this is a hoax. Actually, the subject of the purported documentary makes it even more likely that this is a hoax. Pascal.Tesson 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohrgan[edit]

del "an ancient religion" either a hoax or something nonverifiable. Must be deleted together with other creations of the contributor abot this "religion": Kohrtohrdodos, Talohrod, Tasohros, Ohrgend . Mukadderat 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, Delete as unsourced OR that fails WP:V. It smells hoax-ish ("Ohrgend...have always operated in complete secrecy," and the seeming contradiction of "an ancient religion dating back several centuries" that was "formed during the 3rd Millenium," to name a few problems), and the complete lack of related Google hits doesn't help...I this gets properly sourced, I'll reconsider. -- Scientizzle
Delete unless sourced. —dustmite 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scientizzle. My Alt Account 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Non-notable. El_C 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbank crescent[edit]

This article is about a single street in Southampton, and I don't think it merits an entry. -- P.B. Pilhet 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC), Newpage Patrol[reply]

Delete. Sorry, not-notable. -- RHaworth 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This street has 16 houses and doesn't really assert any importance either historically or otherwise. --Wafulz 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imagine WP as a repository for every street in the world - shudder! Camillus (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all streets unless some importance or notability is givenFram 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soltice eyes[edit]

Unverified neologism/possible hoax. The creating user himself/herself adds, "Please note that this eye type has not been recognized by any offcial goverment,group,eye doctor,etc". -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Joyous! | Talk 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is supposed to be "solstice eyes". Which, if Google is any guide, still makes no sense. William Pietri 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete painful to read, nonsense (not patent though). Danny Lilithborne 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If not literally intended to be a hoax, it appears the author just made it up. My Alt Account 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently the creation of someone who spends too long staring into a mirror. Michael Kinyon 13:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AfD debates don't exist to get an admin to perform complicated merges. If anyone wants to perform a merge, contact me and I'll userfy. Mango juice^talk 14:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the "Protocols of Zion"[edit]

del a very poor fork of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a featured article, and which is actually a 90% history. Mukadderat 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not before the content is moved to the main Protocols article. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- If any content is moved, Delete is an inappropriate violation of GFDL. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's useful (which honestly doesn't look like much), delete the rest. Ergative rlt 22:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ergative rlt ReverendG 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is about the content of the text(s) by that title.
But most people are unaware that on, about, and after 1934, with the help of Nazi Germany, a 299 page text was published, annonymously, but in the name of Victor E. Marsden as the "author of the translation. Now Marsden was dead by 1920--having died in the Summer of that year.
I was to write about numerous editions, editors, publishers, expansions, etc.

Yours truly,---Ludvikus 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After all these non-traditional manipulations with pages and titles I think I am beginning to understand the actual purpose of User:Ludvikus: Bibliography of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This aricle, as a concise reference, would make sense provided that there will be no "history", i.e., no events around these publications. Ludvikus, please comment, did I guess correctly? Mukadderat 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How Many Are There???
- I don't "24 Protocols," or "27 Protocols".
- I meen how many different texts or imprints
Ludvikus 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by using the word "bibliography". Mukadderat 04:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The International Jew The 1934 English language 299 page text is a "MERGE" with Henry Ford's "IJ." Ludvikus 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make sections in this page. They are confusing. Mukadderat 04:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vikilink various simple unimportant words. This makes text difficult to read. Mukadderat 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't move votes for deletion pages. Mukadderat 18:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do simpler editing work until you understand how wikipedia works. You create a confusion. Please lookm how things done in other places until you gain experience. Mukadderat 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge what's salvageable. Agree with Mukadderat's suggestions, and this is not the first time Ludvikus gets good advices. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate.--Peta 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Remaining issues should be solved by editing / {{mergeto}}. Mango juice^talk 14:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students Islamic Organisation of India[edit]

There are no sources to back up any information present in the article other than the SIO Website. All the claims sourcing the SIO Website are touted as fact. The article is highly biased and POV and not backed up by any reliable media outlets or reputable news sources, nor does it contain any citations that satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. In my opinion the article is highly unencyclopedic and full of garbage for what seems to be a non-notable organisationHkelkar 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What is [63][64] Did you do a simple Google search before moving for deletion.TerryJ-Ho 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC).OK for the information contained but this article can stay as stub.TerryJ-Ho[reply]
Comment: I did do a google search first. For me, all the results showed were the ISO website and articles about the charming people in Students Islamic Movement of India.Hkelkar 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article as it stands is unacceptable. At best, it must be deleted and started from scratch.Hkelkar 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify Rama's arrow 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. Problems with article should be corrected, rather than the article deleted. --BostonMA 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not entirely disagree that the subject matter is worthy of wikipedia. I just think that the article is so intensely POV that the best way is to delete and start from scratch.Hkelkar 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify/Cleanup - POV is not a basis for deletion. --Ragib 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Some POV would not be, yes. But the article as it stands now is ALL POV and nothing but POV.Hkelkar 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': I mean, "interfaith dialogues" through "Tea parties"? Surely you jest.Hkelkar 22:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recent reports from the Times of India verifies the organisation's existence. If the current form of the article has POV, work towards cleaning that up. Relying on reliable, established sources, such as well known news media (ToI is one, to start with) should be the basis of the article. It is fine to scrap any existing unreferenced POV content. --Ragib 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering the POV nature of the current state, I suggest reverting to this version of the article, and add only information that can be backed by reliable sources. --Ragib 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:That's a good idea actually.Others please add thoughts.Hkelkar 22:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. Bear in mind that this move is, for all intents and purposes, a "deletion" and restart only so this debate is still valid.Hkelkar 22:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted to the older version, and started adding references. --Ragib 22:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Material which lacks verifiable reputable sources may be removed at any time. This does not require consensus. The burden of providing reliable sources falls upon the editors who wish specific assertions to remain. However, wholesale deletion may be interpreted as edit warring. Unsupported statements need to be examined/deleted on a line-by-line basis. --BostonMA 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just removed all sentences that sound like opinion, and added references from books. Considering the recent press coverage, and availability of references, I think rewriting the article should be the best option. --Ragib 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Mughalstan consensus.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference ... this organization is for real, as supported by information from books published by the RAND Corporation, news articles from Times of India, for example. --Ragib 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

I have re-written the article from scratch, and have added only references from reliable sources. The article is now in stub form, and please only add references from reliable sources when expanding it. Also, rather than being judgemental or subjective, please provide only information that is objective and can be backed by references from reliable sources. Thank you. --Ragib 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent organization.--Peta 04:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thorr's Hammer[edit]

nonnotable band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC: the band existed "only for six weeks during which it played two gigs and recorded an EP" Spearhead 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now Yomangani ^talk 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, a short-lived project band but it does meet WP:MUSIC with notable members (from Sunn 0))) and Khanate), the EP has been re-issued and reviewed on AMG. Their label, Southern Lord Records, seems notable too. Prolog 19:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere, maybe Stephen O'Malley. Kappa 02:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete —Xezbeth 20:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Change Conference[edit]

I'm struggling to find mention of this anywhere besides on wikipedia mirrors. Doesn't appear notable. —Xezbeth 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable organization that received an equally nonnotable "Youth Now Award". Mukadderat 04:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saranghaeyo algorithm[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable or non-existant piece of technology. A Google search for "Saranghaeyo algorithm" reveals only one result: this article. -- tariqabjotu 19:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly likely that this is nonsense. A search shows that "saranghaeyo" means "I love you" in Korean. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think someone might give a legitimate algorithm a Korean name? Kappa 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Oh, I wasn't commenting on the language itself. But, if I was the author, I would think twice before giving it a name that, when translated, stirs memories of a famous worm... :P --Kinu ^t/_c 04:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "recently submitted by programmer Alan Hshieh to the KPRMC (a computer science theory organization)" - until (and if) it has been verified and widely used, not notable. Camillus (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonverifiable. Mukadderat 04:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Incidentally, the Alan Hshieh in question is likely to be the same one (a high school student) referenced in Hshieh-Hammond algorithm and Cysths. Frankly, all three articles smell like OR to me. Michael Kinyon 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Hanson[edit]

Non-notable, sources appears to be self-published. Note that this might be a candidate for proposed deletion instead, but due to my inexperience with the those processes I opted for the careful route instead. Jean-Philippe 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems notable, and he has been quoted in the mainstream media (Fox News, which admittedly brings a right-wing perspective to many of the stories in covers, and the Los Angeles Times). He may be wrong, but I think he's a significant figure in the ongoing debate about alcohol policy in the United States. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably widely published. At least somewhat influential. My Alt Account 03:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. RFerreira 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nonsnese - cheating is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet law firms, Toilet law[edit]

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

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

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

Contested PROD. Delete as a neologism that appears to fail WP:V; the only source I can find is the forum mentioned, so WP:RS is not met.

Also nominated in this discussion: Toilet law, which appears to lack establishment as a term as well. (Most results are irrelevant to this article and actually refer to, well, laws about toilets.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO (although this is probably a protologism), and web forums are not reliable sources. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term sounds like a slur. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Rename but I don't know to what. This class of firm (and case) that don't do well for revenue generation are looked down upon by others in the legal field. SchmuckyTheCat 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. L. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mr. L. My Alt Account 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:V and WP:NEO. Also, as a law student, I have never heard the term "toilet law" and I know that some of the contentions in the articles don't mince with reality.-- danntm ^T _C 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is absurd. Wikipedia's coverage of law is lacking. Why is big law defined yet small law is not defined at all. XOXO, vault, and jdjive which most members of the legal community read is totally ignored on wikipedia. I added Martindale Hubbel peer review which was also lacking. Most members of the legal community are familiar with toilet law--especially in New York and New Jersey where so many are prevalent. It's hard to believe that Wikipedia supports the dearth of information provided for the legal community and practice areas. Also the article about PIP was rediculous and so obviously wrong. Any toilet lawyer could tell you that. But I see noone even trying to edit this. Are any of the people who proposed deleting this even lawyers? I saw one law student and can only say that law students know absolutely nothing about the law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Njlawyer06 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. If you're a lawyer there are many other Law articles that need improving. ReverendG 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~One "vote" per person, please. The way that your site screens terms is rediculous. First, laywers use Lexis and westaw and this isnt going to show up on google or whatever flavor of the week search engine tool you web geeks decide to use. This is reflected by the quality and amount of legal terminology used on this site, which is sparse at best. Second, the popularity of a term on the internet does not always correspond to its popularity in real life. Most lawyers regularly use the term toilet law. It is prevalently used on legal discussion boards and is as much a part of the legal community as the term Big Law. Third, I also see plenty of slang on wikipedia. Just the other day I was reading about a "nanny state." They even have such absurd categories as 9-11 conspiracies. Yet with all the absurd subjects that do not get deleted because some rube has a web page, basic legal terms and categories are totally ignored. Fourth, why would I update your legal listings if I am going to have a bevy of myopic web geeks censoring my posts. It is especially disheartneing to know that these "editors" have limited and sometimes no legal knowledge. I find it highly ironic that some of your legal terms have glaring errors and omissions. Why is it that the greatest interest on this term is not in verifying that terms are correctly defined; rather the singular focus seems to limit the breadth of terms defined on wikipedia. This sort of snobbery leads to an abridged exchange of ideas and circumvents any exercise int he free exchange of ideas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Njlawyer06 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject matter is juvenile ad hominem of no reasonable value to anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.51.212 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeeepThis article is certainly not ad hominem. I imagine that whoever wrote that is from a TTT or what we in the legal proferssion call a third teir toilet. Perhaps this Cooley law student should learn is that ad hominem menas against the person. You are using it as a noun when it is an adverb to describe an argument that is made against a person rather than the subject matter itself. What a moronic thing to say and way to butcher the term in this way. The article poses no argument. It merely defines a term that is widely used to describe the type of jobs available to recent law graduates.
- Comment: No, a "moronic" thing would be blatantly violating WP:NPA. Please play nicely here. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - KEEP**** This is NOT a personal attack, this term is very used but not appreciated by those who practice in these areas of law. Additionally, they do not want to exposed to the public what all the other lawyers already know. If you delete it, it will be a shame.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.179 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* It is a term widely used in well-traveled internet forums in the legal community. It is also a term widely used among young attorneys in communications not on the internet. The New York Times and other mainstream media publications routinely publish skewed articles like http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50D1FF8355A0C728CDDA00894DE404482 that portray attorney salaries as astronomical, when in fact less than 10% of young attorneys even see six figures. Most young attorneys start in the $40k and $50k range, but no one knows the truth. Wikipedia should keep the free exchange of ideas open, so the truth can be heard. As to the pronouncement that "toilet law" is "juvenile," allow me to point to other terms on Wikipedia like "DVDA," which is a slang term for "double vaginal, double anal," a sex position that has never been used. And as to slang terms not known to the general public, what about "hyphy," which is a term to describe an underground hip hop dance form originating from San Francisco? If "big law" is an entry, so should "toilet law," as "toilet firms" outnumbed BigLaw firms 50 to 1, yet the public readily associates attorneys with names like Skadden, Cravath and Wachtell, when sadly, that association is not based in reality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.85.226 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term that really doesn't exist, unlike ambulance chaser that apparently doesn't merit an article. Carlossuarez46 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why can't ambulance chaser o rterms like common barristory be used. I saw that once in a case i read in first year contracts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.246.52 (talk • contribs)
Delete can find no evidence to back up claims that this term is in common enough use for an article. Drak 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - keep*** this term is in common usage within law schools in NYC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.146.249 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The forum in question is anonomous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.96.2 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I move for a Speedy Delete to end this agony. This article is paradigmatic of something that should not be on wikipedia: a neologism, disparaging, unsourced, etc. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Delete nonverifiable neologism Mukadderat 04:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, nonverifiable neologisms, but not speedy so that there is a precedent if someone tries to recreate the articles. NawlinWiki 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although usage of the term "toilet" to refer to a sub-par firm or institution didn't originate with JdJive. It originated much earlier, years ago in fact, on the Princeton Review boards. There is common usage of this term among the ranking-obsessed overachiever crowd, who are all trying to "gun" for the top schools, top firms, and top credentials (see xoxohth.com - which arose from the Princeton Review boards), although it might seem juvenile to outsiders. If we have commonly used terms on Wikipedia used by other subcultures, such as underground hip-hop and techies (as mentioned earlier), I don't see why we can't keep an open mind about this term. Notoriousbhc 13:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ... as mentioned earlier, because the article on the term fails to meet WP:V. Boards and such do not count as reliable sources for neologisms. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni puja[edit]

del. A supposedly ancient indial tradition of worsipping the vagina, but only a thousand+ references from western soures, no India. The article does not cite any reputable source. Looks like an attempt to legitimize pornography. `'mikka (t) 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still researching this one, so no opinion yet. But that last sentence bothers me some; on Wikipedia we shouldn't delete articles just because they don't fit with our POV. William Pietri 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) --Mereda 11:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of the article are copyvio from this page. Other parts of the article could be copyvio from the same site. Also, could someone check the very first version of the article, as that is what gives good results for copyvio checks generally. --Gurubrahma 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my most trusted correspondents in the yoga world writes, "I've never heard of this form of puja. I've been to pujas focused on the shiva lingam, shiva's cock, but the lingam used is a rock. The language being used to describe it sounds genuine to me. It would be a tantric practice, obviously." Which leaves me firmly sitting on the fence. I'm torn between WP:CSB and meta:Eventualism on one hand and WP:V on the other. The copyvio's certainly an issue. The tone is also an issue, but that's also true for related articles like Shiva Puja, and I don't think bad writing is a deletable offense. Hmph. I'd love a reliable source for this article. William Pietri 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you know tamil, the article is soft porn. I leave the community to decide as to what to do with soft porn (I hope that this is a good piece for WikiSTORIES !!!) Doctor BrunoTalk 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After much chewing, Keep and clean up. From the references in the article and my sources, it sounds like there is a real thing here, whether it's a western Neotantric invention or an obscure but historical Tantric practice. Pruning the article, possibly back to being a stub, removes most of the concerns expressed above, and will leave a place for more encyclopedic material to collect. Maybe I'm being too much of an eventualist here, but I don't see a need to delete this yet. William Pietri 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please watch what you are chewing. Texts from funny webpages written by unknown authors, like provided in the article duscussed, are not valid references. There is huge amount of crap floating in the "internets". `'mikka (t) 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but I still see this as cause for pruning back to a stub rather than outright deletion. Which I'll gladly do if this isn't deleted. William Pietri 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though the concept may exist, the current script is not suited for encyclopedia. There is an urgent need to change it Doctor BrunoTalk 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know if you noticed, but Mikkalai reduced it drastically yesterday. If you wanted to trim it more, I think that would be fine. William Pietri 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm Tamil myself and Yoni puja is unverified (nonsesne) and the fact that no Indian sources cite it is suspicious.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . no reputable references. Various websites are full of various wild sexual fantasy related to vagina. Mukadderat 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable references. Also copyvio from the references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have read 100s of books and thousands of articles on Hinduism of all genre, and never came across such a crude representation of fertility cult. It could have been a speedy delete. Having said this, I wish all the best to the original creator. I would like to see him blossom into a big contributor. This is the year of expanding current pages (Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki), and I think that all shall strive towards this goal instead of creating pages of suspect value. All the best! --Bhadani 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni puja[edit]

del. A supposedly ancient indial tradition of worsipping the vagina, but only a thousand+ references from western soures, no India. The article does not cite any reputable source. Looks like an attempt to legitimize pornography. `'mikka (t) 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still researching this one, so no opinion yet. But that last sentence bothers me some; on Wikipedia we shouldn't delete articles just because they don't fit with our POV. William Pietri 20:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) --Mereda 11:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of the article are copyvio from this page. Other parts of the article could be copyvio from the same site. Also, could someone check the very first version of the article, as that is what gives good results for copyvio checks generally. --Gurubrahma 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of my most trusted correspondents in the yoga world writes, "I've never heard of this form of puja. I've been to pujas focused on the shiva lingam, shiva's cock, but the lingam used is a rock. The language being used to describe it sounds genuine to me. It would be a tantric practice, obviously." Which leaves me firmly sitting on the fence. I'm torn between WP:CSB and meta:Eventualism on one hand and WP:V on the other. The copyvio's certainly an issue. The tone is also an issue, but that's also true for related articles like Shiva Puja, and I don't think bad writing is a deletable offense. Hmph. I'd love a reliable source for this article. William Pietri 17:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you know tamil, the article is soft porn. I leave the community to decide as to what to do with soft porn (I hope that this is a good piece for WikiSTORIES !!!) Doctor BrunoTalk 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After much chewing, Keep and clean up. From the references in the article and my sources, it sounds like there is a real thing here, whether it's a western Neotantric invention or an obscure but historical Tantric practice. Pruning the article, possibly back to being a stub, removes most of the concerns expressed above, and will leave a place for more encyclopedic material to collect. Maybe I'm being too much of an eventualist here, but I don't see a need to delete this yet. William Pietri 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please watch what you are chewing. Texts from funny webpages written by unknown authors, like provided in the article duscussed, are not valid references. There is huge amount of crap floating in the "internets". `'mikka (t) 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, but I still see this as cause for pruning back to a stub rather than outright deletion. Which I'll gladly do if this isn't deleted. William Pietri 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Though the concept may exist, the current script is not suited for encyclopedia. There is an urgent need to change it Doctor BrunoTalk 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know if you noticed, but Mikkalai reduced it drastically yesterday. If you wanted to trim it more, I think that would be fine. William Pietri 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm Tamil myself and Yoni puja is unverified (nonsesne) and the fact that no Indian sources cite it is suspicious.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . no reputable references. Various websites are full of various wild sexual fantasy related to vagina. Mukadderat 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable references. Also copyvio from the references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have read 100s of books and thousands of articles on Hinduism of all genre, and never came across such a crude representation of fertility cult. It could have been a speedy delete. Having said this, I wish all the best to the original creator. I would like to see him blossom into a big contributor. This is the year of expanding current pages (Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki), and I think that all shall strive towards this goal instead of creating pages of suspect value. All the best! --Bhadani 19:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lebowski Fest[edit]

Well-advertised but not notable festival in Louisville; only three years running and based on a film of narrow following. The idea that any well-advertised festival would be considered encyclopedic material would cause the Wikipedia to be flooded with articles that don't belong here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their press page [65] and a Google search make it look pretty notable to me. William Pietri 20:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom. begs the question by describing the festival as "not notable." How is the Big Lebowski, one of the most popular movies of the last decade, "a film of narrow following"? Now, a festival may not deserve its own page simply because it is "well-advertised," but why should that fact be held against it absent evidence of how many people attend? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
Comment: As a Louisville resident, compared to many other events in town, I never hear of anyone talking about this one--I see signs, but no local news reviews or chatter. And the idea that this movie is popular is laughable. Absent evidence of movie and especially festival popularity, this subject is not notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Stevie. If you don't consider articles in The New York Times [66] and The Guardian [67] evidence of notability, what will it take to convince you? Thanks, William Pietri 20:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's proof of very good advertising/promotion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I know, that someone's notability is ill-gotten isn't a cause for deletion. Otherwise I'd be first in line to nominate Paris Hilton, who seems only notable for being notable. William Pietri 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Paris Hilton is notable for being a member of a well-known American family, and has appeared in movies and tv shows. Lebowski Fest is a very young festival of little note (with narrow interest and narrow press coverage). Hmmm.... Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say that "the idea that this movie is popular is laughable", I first thought you meant that you think it's ridiculous that the movie is popular. But are you saying that it isn't popular? You should read The Big Lebowski. I'm not very fond of the film myself, but they are correct in calling it a cult classic. Here in San Francisco, for example, they show it every year on 4/20 [68]. And it's not the only local Lebowski event: [69]. William Pietri 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marginal. Perhaps if the article covered all the festivals more thoroughly, and the movie's article did a better job of explaining how the movie is a cult classic, I might have a changeable mind on this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would also ask reviewers to consider the idea that this festival is more a marketing push by a small Louisville business than a notable festival. I don't normally put articles up for deletion, but I thought this one was especially worthy due to it being virtually a self-promoting marketing creation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I move for a Speedy keep. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- That would be fine by me. William Pietri 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The triumph of great promotion? At least let it go through the process. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not on your life. Speedy keep is not a viable option, as you have not proven that this "fest" is notable. The claim alone that The Big Lebowski' is "one of the most popular movies of the last decade" has not been proven. Delete, non-notable festival. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually basing my motion for Speedy Keep on the citation of the Guardian and NYT articles above, both of which establish the notability of the festival. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
    - That is your interpretation. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly NN. Louisville contributors are sometimes overzealous in detail and volume. Please try to find some other article to wrap this up in. WP:NOT a tool for severely exaggerating the importance of local art events. There are plenty of encyclopedic topics in Louisville and this is clearly not one. My Alt Account 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what basis do you say this was created by someone from Lousville? And why would that even matter? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

Keep, national and international coverage demonstrated by William Pietri. Describing the film as being "of narrow following" seems rather ill-informed. Kappa 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether the film The Big Lebowski is hugely popular or largely unknown has no bearing on this discussion. We are not discussing deleting The Big Lebowski, but Lebowski Fest, which is a whole other ball of wax. The 2 year old New York Times article comes close to establishing notability, but if you actually read the article, it's David Edelstein using the Lebowski Fest (noting "I suspect this will grow old pretty quickly...") as an excuse to talk about the movie. So, on balance, I come down on the delete side of things. Put in an external link to the festival on The Big Lebowski page; we don't need an article on every convention in the world. Nandesuka 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability demonstrated by national press coverage. Royalbroil 04:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom makes the case for retention. In a mass media culture, anything well advertised becomes notable for that fact alone. This festival may not be covered in local newspapers, but it has gained international recognition by being featured in The Guardian, which is a UK national paper with a good reputation for covering the arts. It would be a disservice to wikipedia if google searches let The Grauniad (as it is popularly known) monopolise the field and wiki was nowhere to be seen. Stevietheman might like to study Begging the question before composing future noms. :) Tyrenius 06:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The movie's oft-repeated, well-known catchphrases, all across the country ("the dude abides," "nice marmot," etc, etc. Tee-shirts, bumper stickers, and the like), attest to its status as a cult classic film with a small, but noteworthy subculture attached. Not just a following, but a subculture, I'd say. And Lebowski Fest is connected to that subculture. The movie's status as a cult classic would give credit to the entry of Lebowski Fest within the encyclopedia, as it serves as a reference point for those wishing to further study the subculture associated with the film. And I suspect that as the subculture grows into a long-standing and popular trend (akin, perhaps, to Deadheads?), the removal of the entry would only prove to be a mistake, as it would need to be re-added once the festival proves without question to be a notable event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkmerc02 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2006 - User's only edit
Keep. A fair amount of actual press coverage (I mean, a cover story for the Guardian's The Guide? And throw in Scott Simon interviewing the founders on Weekend Edition Saturday [70], which I heard through, as I recall, their "Most E-Mailed Stories" podcast, so yeah, it's non-trivial. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comair 5191 Passenger and Crew List[edit]

The page is just a list of the passengers and crew of Comair Flight 5191 (the flight that crashed in Kentucky, for those not familiar). The few people with notability worth mentioning are already mentioned in a "Victims" section of Comair Flight 5191; the rest are only mentioned at all in the news because they died in the crash. —LrdChaos 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is in poor taste to talk about casualty lists in terms of "notability." The list itself may be notable even if all of the individuals would not qualify to have their own biographical page. I think this list is of inherent notability and interest and I favor keeping it. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- I don't believe it is in poor taste. We're not talking about the value of someone's life, but rather whether it was important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sadly, 99% of the people in the world will lead normal, boring, regular lives and will not get to see their name in an encyclopedia, however tragic their death may have been. Certain people's manner of death may be enough to bring them up to a level warranting inclusion, but this is not the case. Peyna 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have become notable collectively in the accident. We may not yet know whether some of the people were otherwise notable, though they were not in Wikipedia at the time of the accident. I think the use of the word " just a list of passengers" was unecessary. The title explains who the people are; by saying "just" it minimizes their personal value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfields1 (talk • contribs)
- And those who died in Hurricaine Katrina, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, 9/11, the Holocaust all are notable collectively in the same way? Don't think so....Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their "collective notability" should be addressed in just that way, "collectively." In other words, the article about the crash, whether or not we list them, covers this concern. Peyna 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dying in a plane crash does not give you notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. By long standing precedent such deaths are not notable. Yes they are sad and tragic, but their deaths aren't encyclipedic. JoshuaZ 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the value in keeping this. I mean no disrespect for the victims, but I don't think this belongs on Wikipedia, any more than we need a List of people killed in World War I or List of victims of cancer. William Pietri 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. If we don't have a List of 9/11 victims, then we don't need to have this, either. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deny that this article is a "memorial." In considering what is and isn't a memorial, intention is key: something ordinarily meaningless can become a "memorial" if done with a certain intention, like shooting free throws with your left hand instead of right see: Hank Gathers. The policy says, "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives" (presumably by creating a biographical article about them). But this article is not intended to "honor" the victims but to simply state who in fact died. It thus falls outside the prohibition.
But there is one sentence from the policy which needs to be addressed: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered. But the "subject" of this article is not the individuals by themselves, but the individuals as a group. I agree with you that an article about any of them individually would not pass muster, but the prohibition by its terms does not reach casualty lists, which are not biographical in nature. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- As a group, their story is covered in detail at Comair Flight 5191. Peyna 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why not a casualty list as well? Surely a question begged by an article about this disaster is, "Who died in this crash"? Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  - First of all, that is not begging the question. Second of all; unless you knew them, or they were otherwise significant prior to dying in the crash, who died in this crash is not that important to you personally or a matter for an encyclopedia to cover. Wikipedia's goal is not to contain every possible piece of information in the world, but to be an encyclopedia. Peyna 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Listcruft. It is the event that is important, not the individual people associated with it (unless they are notable in their own right). No encyclopedic value whatsoever. —dustmite 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're not - in enyclopedic terms - individually notable. Sorry. --kingboyk 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ogdred 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ. —Khoikhoi 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tragic, but not suitable - imagine the precedent that would be set if this was accepted. Camillus (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Victims are not notable merely for having died in a tragic accident.--chris.lawson 23:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mawkish rubbish! 84.9.83.105 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a memorial, period. Danny Lilithborne 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant listcruft. The event is already well enough covered in its own article. My Alt Account 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the best memorial would not to list the names of the victims here.-- danntm ^T _C 01:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page answers a fundamental question. Who died in the crash of Comair 5191? The list tells the story. The dead are notable as a group for being killed together in the same notable crash. This sub-page is just a fork to keep the main page within a reasonable size. This page does not serve as a memorial or to succor anyones vanity. 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mytwocents (talk • contribs) .
Delete as unencyclopedic; Wikipedia is not intended to be a comprehensive repository of list/table/etc. type data. --MCB 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Punkmorten 06:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic though every one of these deaths is, are we to have lists for every disaster? List of people killed on Japan Airlines Flight 123 might get pretty boring. - Blood red sandman 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree there should be a list available to those who are interested, Wikipedia is not the place for it. VxSote 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already voted, and here is where I will give my reason why. None of the people were in Wikipedia before August 27th (date of crash). It is possible that some of them will become notable, because their work may be "undiscovered" at this point. There is also the possibility that, as a result of the NTSB investigation, a person or persons may become notable (though unlikely). I voted the way I did because of their notability as a group. I already stated my reasons on the Comair page a long time ago, if this page is deleted, then all the names need to be deleted from the Comair Flight 5191 page, except perhaps the two pilot names since their names are the only one likely to be mentioned in the NTSB reports in the future. If this page is deleted, then I immediately request that the editor justify why all the other names will remain on the Comair 5191 page. Likewise the names of the rescuers would be non-notable. Mfields1 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some names are necessary to help complete the narrative. Otherwise we have a lot of pronouns. Peyna 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the passenger names are needed in the narrative in the second paragraph of the "Victims" section. It is not titled well anyway - you cannot name 3 "victims" and exclude the 44 other victims, including mentioning the nationalities of 5. All the activities mentioned, exclusive of the crash, happen in this country every day - people from UK, Chicago White Sox minor leaguers, married people, persons on their honeymoon, Habitat ofr Humanity people, and yes Canadians and Japanese - they all fly every day. People meet other people at the airport every day - why is that shown as notable? The memorials are now past events - why is that a historical note? If it is, then it would be more important to list the names of those memorialized than the event itself. The section was incorrectly headed a long time ago - the section should be "passengers" or "Fatalities" or whatever - and other than a simple statement such as "47 passengers and 2 crew members were killed in the accident, with a lone survivor, the First Officer James Polehinke" I can't see all the other items as being encyclopedic. If they are, they we need to tell all the other stories too - the couple who were going on a 2nd honeymoon, the woman who was in Lexington to buy a horse, the man who missed the flight on Saturday and took the Sunday flight, etc. The problem is a few people early on embelished the section with their own prose, then when other editors wanted to add to it, they are being smacked down. Mfields1 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comment was limited to the names regarding pulling the first officer out, and the sequence of events leading up to the crash. Those names are not a big deal, because they complete the narrative regarding what happened. The list of names of everyone else in the crash doesn't do much for the article or the story of the Comair 5191. Peyna 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that the "human interest" stories about the couple on their honeymoon, etc., don't really belong either. I think it's in the article because CNN covered the honeymooner angle pretty extensively, but to be honest, the reason CNN covered it was to make money by playing on people's emotions, plain and simple. I don't need some manipulative human interest piece from CNN to remind me that when 49 people die that it's a horrible tragedy. Every person on that plane had hopes and dreams that were crushed. The fact that CNN decided to focus on the hopes and dreams of one couple, just in order to get more eyeballs, doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Feel free to delete that part too! --Jaysweet 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact same reason your local media probably tried to find some connection between your area and the crash, or when the Tsunamis hit Indonesia we heard more stories on American media about all of the American victims and survivors than the Indonesians that lost everything. Peyna 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Temporary Keep~~ Delete (Changed my mind at 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)) Please see the history and Talk page for Comair Flight 5191. It is increasingly difficult to keep the victims list off of the main article page. In the spirit of picking one's battles, I think this article should be kept for a few months, until the interest in the main article dies down, and then delete it. I would much rather have an unnecessary near-orphan page floating around Wikipedia for a couple months than have a highly visible article polluted with non-notable information. --Jaysweet 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Wikipedia is not a database of lists. I do feel, however, that a link to a list of the victims should be added to the Comair Flight 5191 article, possibly this link from Yahoo News? - DiegoTehMexican 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. AuburnPilot 20:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoshuaZ. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. – Zntrip 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many disasters have their own articles, and victims are not generally listed, because they were literally "just along for the ride" and had little or no role in causing the disaster. The pilots deserve mention by name as part of the narrative sequence of this story, when their action or failure to act is likely causal. Likewise if a passenger in an air crash shot the pilots or otherwise caused the crash like the 9/11 hijackers, they are an important part of the story. There is a victim list for the Donner Party and the Columbine High School Shootings because their actions affected the outcome. But there need not be in general. However, see American Airlines Flight 77 where about 12 non-notable passengers out of 54 victims get mentioned. Sabena Flight 548 mentions ice skaters and their coaches and families, and ignores the rest of the victims. Edison 23:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlos Suarez Geoffreynham 03:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion not justified by WP:NOT. Gerd Badur 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with comments:
- I can see two other articles that need to be looked at. If this article is deleted, so should the lists of victims of the Munich air disaster and Superga air disaster. Granted, those may be exceptions because of the independent notability of many of the victims—the Munich disaster killed many players on a Manchester United team that were two-time defending English champions, and the Superga disaster killed a Torino team that had won five consecutive Serie A titles. Still, if you delete this list, you should by the same logic delete the lists included in the Munich and Superga articles.
- I agree with the consensus that Wikipedia isn't the place for such a list. I'd like to know what is. (Actually, I have a clue; you can bet there will be memorial sites sprouting all over the Net before too long.) Also, whoever suggested the Yahoo! link to the victims list may not have been aware that Yahoo! news links are not permanent. They typically go away about two weeks after a story runs. — Dale Arnett 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about this one for a minute, because in the case of sports teams being wiped out, of course that has more notability -- but after a bit of consideration, you are 100% correct, Dale: in aggregate, the death of the sports team is notable, but with the exception of star players (who I imagine would have their own article anyway) that is not notable enough in and of itself to warrant a list. You are totally correct, those articles should be AfD'd as well. --Jaysweet 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you're having a laugh now - just try deleting those articles, sit back, and wait for WWIII! Camillus (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually mispoke, I meant just paring down the victims listing, not deleting the article (the events themselves are clearly notable in those cases). But yeah, you're probably right that would be WWIII anyway ;D --Jaysweet 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Userfy avaliable upon request. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic: The Fated Hour[edit]

No notability asserted after a week's worth of time. Fails compared to other Sonic fan games. "Fated Hour" only gets 77 Ghits [71] compared to "Time Attack" (629 hits) [72] and "Robot Blast 2" (38,000 hits) [73] Hbdragon88 20:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on! Not another moderator and this "assertions of notability" stuff! What does an "assertion of notability" mean, anyway?!? I gave you Ryan's e-mail address, what more do you want?!? *sigh* Alright, here's a link to the article's talk page, you can look at my arguments there. Namely, the following two paragraphs, taken directly from the talk page. --Luigifan 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? It's been proposed for deletion again!?!?!???!!?!!! AUGGHHH!!!! Alright, first, the reason that this page hasn't been hit much is because... it was only created about a week ago! Second, the game hasn't recieved many hits because it hasn't been completed yet. I only mentioned that about 5 or so times in the article and its talk page combined, along with the fact that it won't be complete for a very long time. Third, I already stated that I don't have very much information! Really, I can't provide anything else for now! As soon as Blaze's site updates, I should be able to provide more!

So, please, give me a break already! Do I really have to go here every day to protect this page from deletion?!? I can't handle this! Can't anybody give me a hand? I mean, if Blaze himself shows up, that's great, but otherwise I'm going to need all the help I can get! --Luigifan 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Hbdragon88 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable (except for the fact that it was supposed to be released in 2000, and they're still working on it...) --Ogdred 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you've got nothing for sources besides the creator's website, it just ain't notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am very disappointed that this wasn't deleted earlier. Fan-created games shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's nothing wrong with articles about fan games that gain notoriety, but unreleased and incomplete fan games almost never deserve articles because it is nearly impossible for them to become notable before existing. This appears to be an example. — brighterorange (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN unfinished fan game. Wish you guys luck, but verifiability is not satisfied by your own predictions about how notable this game will be when it's finished. My Alt Account 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Move to User:LuigiFan/Sonic: The Fated Hour to discourage article recreation in the article namespace until after release, and so that Luigifan can work on it in the mean time. I'd normally say delete outright, but the poor guy hasn't made many edits. --DavidH Oz Au 10:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're so kind, David. Seconding the Userfy. --Rankler 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / against userfyWikipedia is not a crystal ball, however, Wikipedia is generally not the place for dojin or vanity games. (Or vanity press books, etc...) Fan games, also known as doujin games, tend to violate the Wikipedia rules for verifiability as there are often no independent sources for information. --Kunzite 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy - Wait until it gets notable. I'm actually not sure how notable MarioWeen is but whatever. I guess I'm trying not to bite. Axem Titanium 01:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN fan game, as I see it. +Fin- 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep/userfy. I think I heard about it somewhere,that makes it notable. +Hellionzod- 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not even released, it in no way is notable. Fan-made gamess have dubious notability in the first place, but if it's unreleased it has zero chance of surviving Wikipedia. Hbdragon88 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Irish Piano"[edit]

Although it's a well-made article, I have concerns about the notability of the film and the ability to verify any of the material from reliable sources. It also doesn't seem to meet proposed subject-specific guideline Wikipedia:Notability (films). William Pietri 20:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any film whose "official site" is a myspace page is by definition not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zoe may be right about this one, but beware of categorical statements: http://www.myspace.com/JohnTucker is the official site for John Tucker Must Die. -- nae'blis 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable student/indy film. Zoe's right. Fan-1967 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, here's another argument. If John Tucker Must Die can get onto Wikipedia, surely a GOOD film should be able to.

Support for the article[edit]

In support of keeping the article, I would like to bring up a few points. The current Wikipedia policy on the notability of films (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(films) ) is currently nothing more than a "proposed" policy. As such, it is subject to substantial future revisions, and, in theory, has no present authority. It is not my intent to disregard it completely, however, simply to note that, based on the policy being subject to substantial revisions, and that it is still not official, deleting The Irish Piano page on Wikipedia is, at this point in time, a grossly premature act based off of something not yet even official policy.

I do understand, however, that film notability is necessary to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia (much like films must meet certain requirements to obtain a page on IMDb). I do believe that The Irish Piano's qualifications make it inherently notable to be on Wikipedia. The biggest qualification is that The Irish Piano is debuting at a film festival; surely film festival features are notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia.

As for verifiablity, most of the page doesn't really need to be verified (i.e. plot, film references, etc.). I think the only aspect that may need verifiability is that it is in fact in a film festival. The McFarland Film Festival is part of a bigger city festival in McFarland, WI, known as the Family Festival. The McFarland Film Festival is going to be a part of the Talent Show, one of several activities at the Family Festival. The McFarland Family Festival website can be found here: http://www.mcfarlandfamilyfestival.org/ I will add in this citation.

As for having a homepage on myspace negating notability, that's simply denying notability to a film that does not have adequate resources to make an independent website. A myspace homepage in no way affects the quality of the film and certainly doesn't stop it from being featured in a film festival, a surefire sign of notability; in short, a homepage has absolutely nothing to do with notability. I understand the arguments against keeping The Irish Piano on Wikipedia, and for the most part feel them to be reasonable, but I respectfully feel that that point is not. Also, where does the definition of notability specify that a MySpace homepage negates notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltajuliet (talk • contribs)

Comment No, showing at a film festival is not enough to meet the standards. Many, many (most?) independent films (especially short films, almost universally) are screened at a few festivals and never heard from again. There is no coverage of this film from any external sources, which is the very definition of non-notable. Fan-1967 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In supporting keeping the article, I think that certain parts of the notability policy are a bit off. I mean, some smaller movies released by movie studios don't even make it to 200 theatres and don't get much, if any, advertisement. Yet, they may become huge on video or on the festival circuit.

And also, this film has no external sources now, but what if sometime in the future it does, and may become huge, much the way that a film like "El Mariachi" did. Then the argument of whether this article should be deleted, if it does get deleted, will have seemed unnessecary. So, in closing, I believe this article should be kept. --FreedomHampster 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point there's nothing that puts your film even in 200 theatres, or 20. It may become a big video hit, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we don't cover things which may become notable. If it becomes notable later, the article may be recreated at that time. Right now, it's an unreleased film with no attention, no coverage and no distribution. Fan-1967 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, FreedomHampster, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I hope you guys are the next El Mariachi, and when that happens you can count on us to rewrite the article. But if we take the "one day it might be famous" approach, there's no end to it. I'm sure that before he shot a frame Rodriguez spent many hours with buddies and beers kicking the idea around. Before that, it was a vague notion he had on the bus. We can never cover everybody's sudden ideas and back-of-envelope sketches, so we've drawn some lines that we think will let us build a good encyclopedia. Luckily, there's plenty of room on the Internet, so don't be shy about putting your material up elsewhere. William Pietri 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, not verifiable. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. My Alt Account 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it being used as one - that same argument could be used for any commercially-related page on Wikipedia. —the preceding comment is by DeltaJuliet - 01:10, 11 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

This is a film created by a couple of High Schoolers, it is an amature film...therefore expecting that the official site be anything more than a myspace is unreasonable...a website costs a lot of money to run and for an amature film that was not made to make money, a myspace should be plenty. The first festivle is a planned showing, but not the only one, there may be more in the future... {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.82.175.40 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. On the off chance it is kept, should be moved to The Irish Piano (which is a redirect to the current location). -- NORTH ^talk 05:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, creator blocked indef as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen (TV series)[edit]

Unverified fan-made crystal-ballery. Mad Jack 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mad Jack 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Already deleted once, so doesn't that make it speedyable? Though it was called Thirteen (Show) the first time. Dismas|^(talk) 20:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the first time I took it as a good faith edit and moved it from the (Show) link to (TV series), please delete the redirect as well. Dismas|^(talk) 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Speedy deletion per G4. Under what pretense was this deleted under? And was it previously speedy deleted? --Nishkid64 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was speedied before since it was gone hours (minutes?) after I moved it to "TV series". There was no time for an AFD discussion, unless I've been asleep for days. The deletion log entry is here. Dismas|^(talk) 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smells like another stupid 13-year-old hoax. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User also should be blocked for this comment (where he says it's fun to make up TV show articles). Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My Alt Account 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, don't forget to delete the redirect as well. VegaDark 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now. Please. No really now. DO IT NOW!! Jtervin 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Spears, Rich and Popular[edit]

Non-existant show, does not show up on IMDb or TV.com. Does not show up on individual actors' pages as being in production. This is the second non-existant show, at least, that this user has added to Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Teenboy5000 has added this as well as Thirteen (TV series). Both are bogus and Thirteen was already deleted once. Dismas|^(talk) 20:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you beat me to it! Mad Jack 20:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hoax. --Nishkid64 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid hoax. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; apparent serial hoaxer. My Alt Account
Delete per above. VegaDark 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'DELETE This show is so fake. Britany Spears is not doing a childrens televison show and they didn't even spell her name right. HAHA. Jtervin 01:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax ReverendG 02:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Little[edit]

Non-notable person. No evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and less than 800 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ogdred 21:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 21:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Army of Yamatai[edit]

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

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

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

non-notable Internet roleplaying bulletin board. Only 37 unique Google hits and only 4 sites link to it. The Google results seem to indicate it's won some web awards, but they're really a dime a dozen and none of them seem to be given out by a well-known source (it would be nice if someone could confirm this though, I'm not entirely up to speed on web awards). Site does not appear to pass WP:WEB. -Elmer Clark 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Creator removed PROD notice with the explantion, "Please don't delete the article :-(" -Elmer Clark 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nish. JoshuaZ 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added "please don't delete" but am not the creator (I'm Star Army's admin). It was likely one of my community's members. The notice said it could be removed if there was objection to deletion, so and I removed it because I objected. While my site isn't huge, I believe wholeheartedly it isn't insignificant. It has members from all over the world, from Japan and South Africa, to the U.K., Argentina, and of course home in the U.S. It recieves about fourty thousand visitors yearly and has set itself above the masses of fly-by-night crap role-play sites that give online text-based role-playing games a bad name. Our presence at conventions and close connection to the internet phenomenon that is 4chan are also significant to those involved. For these reasons, I ask that the mark for deletion be removed.

Thanks, Wes

Unforunately, with the Internet being intrinsically international, having international members isn't much of a claim to notability. In order to merit an article, the website must demonstrate meeting criteria proposed in WP:WEB. This criteria is derived from notability guildelines, verifiability policies, and the availability of reliable sources, which allow us to avoid original research. This all helps to build an informative, neutral article. Remember that Wikipedia is also not a web directory or indiscriminate collection of information. --Wafulz 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wes and I are not the same person. Please don't jump to conclusions. :) While I have no objections to removing the article if it indeed does not meet Wikipedia's standards, WP:WEB seems to be unduly harsh, and doesn't seem to be fully enforced. Under its strict definition, even a popular, critically acclaimed webcomic like Dominic Deegan would fail the WP:WEB test, since the article on Dominic Deegan itself makes no attempt to offer evidence that it passes WP:WEB in the first place. I'm not looking to stir up trouble here, but it would be greatly appreciated if WP:WEB could be further clarified, as it seems somewhat subjective right now. GoldPanda 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your comment on your talk page. --Wafulz 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable RPG board. Danny Lilithborne 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless they agree to make me an admin on their site. My Alt Account 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am a member of Star Army, this does not meet Wiki policy. Sekiko

I bow to Seki's judgement, but please tell me how this site is any less notable than this guy's webcomic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC/MS. The webcomic's creator and the article's creator appears to share the same first name. -- GoldPanda 07:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in need of a lot of clean-up. That article no more meets the standards than this one. If you find such articles on your journey through wikipedia, you are strongly encouraged to nominate them for deletion. --Kunzite 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I'm too new around here to be going around "prodding" other people's pages, but I recommend looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Webcomics. -- GoldPanda 04:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting to prod them. (The prodding system doesn't work very well--there are people who go through the category and remove entries without explanation or good reason.) Just go straight to the deletion debate. I am familiar with that web project. If you read the first paragraph, it links directly to website notability guidelines, (aka WP:WEB). Webcomics tend to create articles for a lot of non-notable sites. They get deleted quite a bit too. see the archive. Most of the keeps are also "no concensus keeps". Someone will re-nominate it in a few months so that we may try to reach a concensus on the article. --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A surprising number of articles that were marked "deleted" were *not* deleted in the archive. It was good for a laught at least. Thanks for the link. :) -- GoldPanda 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say [award] alone makes it pass WP:WEB. -Wes— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.233.42 (talk • contribs)

Respectfully, I wouldn't say that. Maybe I'm just wrong, but a web award has to be pretty darn well known before I'd put much stock in it. My Alt Account 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the standards shouldn't be based on opinion. If we stick to the standards as written, then Star Army qualifies as being notable. The article is beneficial to Wikipedia - Sure, it's not very important, but it is interesting and informationally useful and unbiased; it isn't just an excuse to link to my site! - Let's keep it around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.233.42 (talk • contribs)

The standards certainly do not mean to imply that any web award merits noteworthiness, just particularly well-known ones. Skimming over that site, people can just "submit" links, so I would hazard to guess that it doesn't have the most stringent selection process in the world, and probably isn't considered a very serious award. -Elmer Clark 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and reply Even if the award were notable, the problem is that it did not win an award. It was "Featured Site of the Week" according to the above link. I have grave doubts about this award being notable. It seems more like a web-gimic than any serious web-based award. This does not meet WP:WEB --Kunzite 00:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Search [recipients] and you'll find it there too with their highest-level award.

Please sign your posts. This shows nothing other than the site has been ranked "excellent" by readers. It says nothing of winning an award. This discussion is moot anyway, that award that does not meet the level prescribed in the WP:WEB footnote. --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[from talk page:] I will speak up.

Some SA players have discussed this issue. Though we understand, in a vague sort of way, that we are not up to snuff with Wikipedia, I find that if several webcomics, some of dubious fame or importance, are allowed stubs under their own WikiProject, why can't Star Army exist on Wikipedia as well? We've established ourselves well enough, and we are one of the few all-original RP universes that has any true depth.

I only ask for balance.

I agree on this point. While I stated that SA probably isnt of sufficient note to have a Wiki article, the Project Webcomics issue is a prime example of blatant stubs and advertisements, most of them with little note and little following. While a project for webcomics certainly has a place, webcomics should follow the same rules everyone else does. Nonnotable little ass-end bits of the web dont belong on Wiki. Sekiko

I also agree with this. Star Army has reinstated my interest in the world of roleplaying. While some might not like the level of technology present I myself feel it adds to the ability to incorperate new and exciting things of ones own creation into the game that simply wouldn't fit into so many others. I would find it difficult to find many if any other online roleplaying games that have such depth and yet are easy to get involved with and play. DRIKER— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.78.88 (talk • contribs)

I am glad you enjoy it, but that's not enough to establish notability. See WP:WEB, and tell me if you think it qualifies. -Elmer Clark 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Crossposted From Talk Page] WP:WEB is a guideline intended to help remove useless content and link spam; however, this article is legitimate and therefore the guidelines should not be used to delete it. I don't know why , but you seem to have developed a personal vendetta against the article. WEP or not, it's a decent, informative little article that will improve over time as all Wiki articles do. Deleting it would be a loss to Wikipedia. -Wes

Please do not accuse others of vendetta's plese always assume good faith. WP:WEB has very well-definied and open criteria for web content. The site must have had multiple, non-trivial messages in any media outlet. (i.e. a featured article in a newspaper, trade magazine, etc.. not just a mention in a list of links. My personal home page, for example, has its URL published in newspapers in the US, UK, Hungary, etc.. but no feature was done on it, therefore it doesn't meet these guidelines.) OR the site must have won an award from a major, notable award. (i.e. not an "award mill" like the above mentioned site.), or finally, the site must have had its content reproduced by a notable media company (i.e. if somone took your RPG stories and turned them into a book. Though, it couldn't be self-published.) These are really, really lax criteria that all serve to enforce the official policy Wikipedia is NOT a web directory. If there are other articles that you have found on wikipedia that don't meet these guidelines; by all means nominate the article for deletion. We have a lot of clean-up to do on this front and it's slow going. --Kunzite 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it indescribably disappointing that my community, with its hundreds of members and the thousands of days and dollars I've put into it, cannot be given even two paragraphs in what is supposed to be the world's collection of knowledge. It's like me saying your mother wasn't important enough to be in your family tree. -Wes— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.140.114 (talk • contribs)

I can see where you're coming from, but if we included all such communities, we'd be swamped with articles that are of little encyclopedic value really to anyone except members. Internet forums are only notable if they're well-known outside...themselves, if that makes sense. -Elmer Clark 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have no vendetta against your website, I've never even heard of it. I've simply been trying to explain our reasons for deletion to you to help you understand why this ISN'T a "personal vendetta" against you/your site, but just application of policy. I have already voted; I was trying to do you a favor. -Elmer Clark 21:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...if this has to be deleted, please allow it to be recreated in the future when I somehow create some worldwide news. At that point, I'll return and repost it.

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lygokinesis[edit]

Not a real word - only appears on Wikipedia and it's mirrors. CovenantD 20:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax word. Danny Lilithborne 00:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. When I came across the article I thought it may have originated in comics, and tried to fix it up. But I was just coming now to tag it with {{db}} when I saw this. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (No consensus). --- Glen 07:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EmailCash[edit]

This seems like an advertisement, which is fixable. But it doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:WEB, which isn't. Proposed deletion was rejected by 210.10.183.79 as "Not An Advertisement". -- William Pietri 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm surprised there's nothing to get it over either of the standards, since the ads are on TV here in Oz frequently enough to make me want to throw something at the screen. Still, a cursory Google test seems to back that up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 22:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not completely clear to me whether this passes WP:CORP and WP:WEB but if it stays, it's in serious need of re-writing. My Alt Account 00:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an advertisement, this article has been here for a long long time and in recently has been vandalised by fake accounts at emailcash forums. —the preceding comment is by 210.10.183.79 - 02:04, 13 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

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

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

The result was Delete. --- Glen 07:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schlick[edit]

Contested PROD. The band does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Joyous! | Talk 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it sounds like their first song was only released a couple weeks ago and only on MySpace. TJ Spyke 20:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND. —dustmite 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Michael 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. My Alt Account 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X3i[edit]

No context on this, so I'm not really sure what this is, but a google search for X3i Rifes returns five hits. This does not give me confidence of notability. This reveals it to be a student film that has yet to be shown anywhere notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already being played on The Ohio State University campus. If you search on X3i Divinity more sites would come up on google. Its a popular internet series as well. Four episodes are finished, have been on television (and still are) and the Four episodes are online.

This is my first time posting on Wikipedia but I am trying to follow the guidelines as best I can (and as quickly as I can). Please give me some time.

The show plays on the "Buckeye TV" channel, which is already on Wikipedia. I'm just branching off on this specific series.

Are you all going to allow me to create the X3i page?

Delete nothing above is sufficient to detract from nom's point. Danny Lilithborne 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done?? This is an Ohio State television series that is played on Buckeye TV, whhich is already on wikipedia. This is Ohio States first sci/fi drama television series. And to our knowledge thus far, the first sci/fi drama series created at Any college. Just because it didnt come up in a main search in google, shouldnt mean much. There is some dell out there with the name X3i, which makes it hard to find under google. Like I said, if u search "X3i Divinity" or "X3i Cobra Productions" more options would come up. Please do not delete this after all the work we have been putting into it all day long. Especially after this late of notice..

Delete Student production shown on student network doesn't make it. Fan-1967 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All images associated as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 06:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im still lost on the whole situation.

I do not understand your stance that Buck-i TV as a station is of significance for your site, yet the programming on the station is not (even if the given program is on the current roster of available shows as it has been for approximately two years.) I'm sure you are aware of the vast number of persons who attend The Ohio State University, and though they may not all watch the show, it is available to them via the network. I think the popularity of this actual show is only as relevant as the popularity of the network it appears on. Again, Buck-i TV made the cut. Also, about your request for a valid or notable review, I point to Buck-i TV as our source. Any notable review of the station would naturally have an overview of the programming. If that event has occured anytime within the last two years, X3i would have been a part of that review. Although I do not have any specific article to point out to you or that information readily at hand, it seems only natural that these two things would be connected. Our popular success is not soley connected to Buck-i TV, though. Our series and upcoming movie have had various viewings and reviews from multiple websites (and forums). I understand that you have rules and regulations, but it seems illogical that these criteria would invalidate the experiences and opinions of a rather large online, interactive community. I really do not wish to be confrontational about this. Any personal investment I may have in this project witholding, I still believe that the crux of this argument is that X3i is real, it is visible and consumable, and it is part of a network/community that is, or at least should be, recognized. I thank you for your time and hope to hear from you regarding this matter once again.

- AXanderSR

Delete per nom. -- RHaworth 08:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual series that only appear on one college tv station are not quite notable enough. I also think the circumstances raise verifiability problems. My Alt Account 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Revelations

This is a link to a wikipedia page for an internet fan film which did not have a national theater release. Though, I do not doubt it's notability, it does cast a shadow over the arguement made regarding X3i's non-theater release and significance. At the bottom of the linked page is a list of other such internet fan films, mostly regarding Star Wars (unofficially) that also fail to meet the release criteria.

Because I feel this debate is becoming circular, and I feel as though no matter what evidence or arguements I present I will be countered with continued, perhaps repetitive rebuttal, I am beginning to question the overall objectivity of this evaluation. I would like to state that X3i as a series or movie, nor its creators, are seeking this inclusion into the Wikipedia database as a means for promotion or even validation. Our own accomplishments with the network, internet viewings, and forums are satisfying enough for both of those departments.

I am being told now, as before, that X3i is failing to meet this or that certain criteria, but I feel I have provided sufficient evidence or argument to the contrary on all accounts. Aside from that, many of these supposed requirements being presented are not requirements even being met by other wikipedia entries.

-AXanderSR

ps - this is proof of X3i playing on many college campus's across the states. We play on OSTN

https://ceai1.campuseai.org/portal/page?_pageid=233,8571180&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

   Note that I said in general. Star Wars: Revelations is the exception to the in general rule. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

   "Keep this article because you have other ones just as bad" is not a valid argument. Address the concerns raised about this one. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

   I think you will find five other people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X3i who will tell you the exact same thing. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See, that is the sort of argument I was talking about--circular. You failed to present a case against the majority of my statements. One film being THE exception is not a valid or objective point. Who or what exactly determines what is or is not an exception? It is also untrue. I directed you to the bottom of the page where there are links to other such fan films. I guess I will have to lay them out for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Allegiance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Watto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader%27s_Psychic_Hotline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Sith_Stole_Christmas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMPS_The_Relentless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jedi_Hunter

and so on...

ALSO, please note that X3i DOES have a notable network showing on Buck-i TV and is the ONLY student series from OSU, shown on OSTN.

Links provided: https://ceai1.campuseai.org/portal/page?_pageid=233,8571180&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Student_Television_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_tv

SO, the series is more than a mere burb on some insignificant local college station, it aires on televisions across multiple college universities. As a courtesy of debate, I would appreciate if you would take the time and consideration to provide clear and concise reasoning for your arguements, as well as meet each point or topic within my rebuttals. I do not think that is too much to ask.

I never made any judgements about the quality of the other productions. The greatest concern you have brought up is a clear lack of professionalism, tact, and objectivity. I doubt Wikipedia or any other professional institution would accept your words as being representative of their own. You have failed to address several concerns and FACTS being brought up about the topic, and I do not wish to continue this "debate" with you. I would like to speak to another moderator, who, hopefully, will display the positive qualities you seem to lack.

I think those five people would have the sense to look at the same evidence and arguments that have been presented to you with objective clarity and worthwhile commentary.

Delete - Might have been a weak keep if they had actually finished the series, but four episodes of an incomplete college tv series and a trailer to an amateur movie isn't enough to count as notable, imo. StuartDouglas

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Church, Belfast[edit]

Despite being deleted twice already, there is still no evidence of notability. A Prod and Prod2 have been removed. Delete. BlueValour 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article asserts no notability other than it being a church, which is not sufficient. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Closest it comes to an assertion of significance is that it is the only emergent church in South Belfast. That is not of encylcopedic significance. (This assertion was added when the prods were removed. (I had posted the prod2.) GRBerry 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I pass the place practically everyday in life and, whilst it has a nice coffee shop and a clearly dedicated bunch of volunteers, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Keresaspa 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete parishcruft. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work with Belfast City Council. Only passing knowledge of City Church but aware of efforts in Holyland regeneration/Holyland Residents Group. Article needs edited for bias. Some non encyclopedic information and should not be used as an ad for church but still probably deserve an article. McLarnon 12:29, 12 September, 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. It may be helpful to remind people that WP:N is not an official policy or guideline. Mango juice^talk 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawktree Golf Club[edit]

Deprodded with no reason given. Nothing notable about this golf course and no major has been played here. Delete. BlueValour 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no assertion of notability. —dustmite 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the relevant parts state Initially, information on places of local importance should be added to an article on the community where that place is located... As more verifiable information on local places is added to the community article, the article or individual sections will start to get overly large. - nothing about keeping small, non-notable articles, here. BlueValour 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about deleting it either. BTW if you expect me to read what you are saying, why do you mark your edits as minor? Kappa 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clear intention behind these words is that you do not create short articles for things of only local importance. If you wish to keep the article the preferable action is to find enough notable things to say that justify its existence. BlueValour 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this article, and I don't care very much if it's kept or merged. Kappa 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's entirely honest. :-) BlueValour 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My Alt Account 03:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the vast majority of North Dakota's golf courses have been on Wikipedia for some time and there's never been an issue. Why didn't someone bother to check with WP:WPND before moving to delete? --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with all due respect Alex, what would be the point of that? <nom>"Hi, I'm going to AfD a ND related article because I don't see the notability" <WPND>"Please don't we think it is notable..."? The fact is that this is a golf course with no demonstrated notability or importance to put it over and above any other golf course in the world. Whether it is in ND, MI, NY is irrelevant. Unless their is a PGA or Senior tournament played here I don't see any reason for an article...--Isotope23 20:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Hawktree has been implementing cunning edge technology on the golf course which could be discussed in greater detail. The article could be expanded greatly as there is a vast amount of information available. There is no reason to delete the article. Weatherman90 02:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fine; add sourced content I will vote keep too. BlueValour 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark as stub then expand.--Jolomo 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with Alex that WP:WPND should have been contacted before putting this up for deletion. I really don't see what is wrong with having articles for individual golf courses. Most of these articles could be (and will be) expanded in the future. Articles like this are obviously stubs, but what's wrong with that? There are thousands of other stub articles on Wikipedia that no one would think of nominating for deletion. What's the difference between those articles and an article about a golf course? Both may be small now, but could be greatly expanded in the future...that's what being a stub article is all about. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 05:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the question is whether there is sufficient notability for this to be expanded? If there is why has it not been? There is nothing wrong with golf courses if they are notable courses. Since you have said 'Strong Keep' you must have clear notability evidence; please add it to the article or amend your view. BlueValour 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of importance. North Dakota project people need to calm down and get some perspective. Indrian 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does need to be expanded though.--grejlen - talk 23:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article has been around since March and no encyclopaedic content has been provided. The fact that this is a golf course does not justify its presence in Wikipedia. Either editors should substantially expand it or agree to its deletion. BlueValour 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge with Bismarck, North Dakota. Travisl 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Bismarck, North Dakota would do unless it's expanded.--grejlen - talk 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand. --RicKAbbo 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there is a tournament held here, I don't see the notability.--Isotope23 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MatthewUND and I have developed a plan to merge the unexpanded golf course articles originally created by Leopold Sampsonite (who has not edited anything in a while) with the relevant city pages. This particular article will likely not be merged as there is interest in expanding it soon. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --- Deville (Talk) 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redneck Samurai[edit]

This page reads like a vanity page for a non-notable short film project (<400 ghits for "Redneck Samurai" mostly unrelated, "Official Site" has a gif only, no content). Page was created by the film-maker, and is of substandard quality. The creator immediately deleted a prod tag. Ogdred 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- just saw WP:NOTFILM. The creator, User:WhiteyWhite, claims to have shot the jpegs of the actors, leading me to conclude he is one of the filmmakers, as well. --Ogdred 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hope that the film will one day be notable, but the closest I can come to proving that now is this: [74]. For now, I think this falls under WP:V and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox as well as proposed guideline WP:NOTFILM. William Pietri 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete it I'm kinda new to all this wikipedia stuff so im learning how to use it. I recently saw this film and know it's being developed. it being put on Imdb.com but they told me they need proof as well. so once the site is up proof will be availible. —the preceding comment is by Whiteywhite - 23:29, 10 September 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

Hi, the issue isn't that the film doesn't exist, it is that it is not notable (at this point in time). Read WP:NOTFILM or the other links above. The fact that you personally are trying to have it added to IMDB makes that source less relevant for notability. --Ogdred 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not associated with Japan at all, removing. ColourBurst 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ihows does that make it less notable? its a indie film series. it being created in north Carolina what does it need to be notable? win something?Whiteywhite

Yeah, getting it accepted to a well-known film festival would be pretty good. The concept isn't all that novel. ColourBurst 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, win a well-known award (the Podunk Film Festival "Best Film Titled Redneck Samurai" won't cut it, unfortunately), be one of the main attractions at a significant film festival, or get some kind of media attention (and if it wins an award or is a main attraction, it's likely to appear in a newspaper or two anyway). Confusing Manifestation 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. Danny Lilithborne 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, with a touch of crystal ball, so, not verifiable either. My Alt Account 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it been in a few newpapers but none online....?Whiteywhite

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Andre (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thizz[edit]

Non-encyclopedic/non-notable... seems like something straight from urbandictionary --Pembertond 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviuos nonsense. Shouldn't this be a candidate for speedy deletion? --Ogdred 21:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't sure--seems like there have been a lot of edits to it without anyone saying anything so I was unsure. But yeah, you are right, probably should have speedy'd it. --Pembertond 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedied. Andre (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (at least currently) describes the language as constructed, so all comments about whether or not this language is "fake" are pretty much irrelevant. I have disregarded count completely: first of all, there were too many votes, but also it was clear that some kind of promotion of this debate took place somewhere. The policies this article would have to pass are WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:V, just like every other article. All three are an issue here. Let me handle them one at a time. WP:NPOV -- the issue here is how to present the substance of the Siberian language work. It's mentioned in the article that "some consider their approach unscientific," but regardless, the viewpoints go way beyond the sources, so WP:NPOV dictates that the article should at best be dramatically shortened. WP:NOT (notability) is somewhat of a problem, because without any published linguistic analysis of this, there's not much we can say. The project may be notable, as it's been covered in some media sources, though, but it's borderline, and the article is really about the language anyway. WP:NOT a soapbox applies also, but WP:V is the biggest issue: while WP policy leaves open the idea that we can use foreign language-only sources in an article, it's a bad idea in a case like this one where the claims go well beyond basic description: really, until there are source in English, the en.wiki community cannot maintain a policy-compliant article on this topic. While I considered a weasely "no consensus" close here, it's clearly in the interests of the community to have a decision here, and move on. And consensus is important for WP:NOT but not so much for WP:V anyway. Okay. I hope that explains my reasoning: I read every comment, and looked as best as I could at every issue. I do hope that if there's a deletion review, or any further debate on this topic that those of you who came here to simply add as many votes as possible will not participate: you know who you are, and you're just making all this more difficult. Mango juice^talk 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian language[edit]

Relisted due to contested closing. `'mikka (t) 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article is nominated for the second time. The previous afd is Here. The result was delete. Original research. The language does not exist outside the internet. The only references to the language itself are the authors blogs.There is no published books on this "language", nor any WP:RS study of it. abakharev 02:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is lie. Please read the following links about the old siberian, for example -

Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.
Богословская З.М. Словарь вариантной лексики сибирского говора. – Томск, 2000. – Т.1 – 303с.
Вершининский словарь/ Гл. ред. О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998-2001. Т.1-5.
Полный словарь сибирского говора/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1992-1995. – т. 1-4.
Иванцова Е.В. Феномен диалектной языковой личности. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та,2002. – 312с.
Словарь просторечных русских говоров/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова 1998. – 320с.
Раков Г.А. Диалектный идеографический словарь. – Томск. – изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998. – 345с.
Словарь русских старожильческих говоров Среднего Прииртышья. В 3 т. Томск, 1992.
Садретдинова Г.А. История заселения русскими Западной Сибири в связи с изучением сибирских старожильческих говоров. //Диалектологические и историко-лингвистические проблемы. Омск, 1999.
Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка: в 4 т., М., 1989.

And do not lie more. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where did e.g. Dahl speak about the "Siberian language"? BTW try to be civil 02:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of remarks "siberian" in his vocabulary. You directly lie and I directly say this, this is not abuse. And the AFD you mentioned was a year ago about OTHER article, which was just a stub. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please type in Google "сибирский старожильческий говор" or "севернорусское наречие" and read the NPOV sources. May be you do not know Russian dialectology and your lie is just mistake. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a impudent liar ! All of your sources are Russian language dialects about. For example : 4. Полный словарь сибирского говора - Full dictionary of siberian dealect 6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров - The dictionary of colloquial Russian dialects 10. Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка - The explanatory dictionary of live Russian language

Strong Keep May need to be reclassified as a dialect. However, we have articles about various dialects. I see no reason why we should not have this. Nlsanand 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Siberian dialects would be indeed a very useable one. This particular Siberian language deels with an artificial language invented by Yaroslav Zolotaryov which does not exist outside the Internet blogs. It has nothing more with reality than the tripling African elephants abakharev 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The language is codification of the dialects, that's all --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. The Russian language consists of the literary norm and the dialectsEthereal0000 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur[reply]

Keep unless all of its references are shown to be false. If this were a popular constructed language, we would still have an article on it. If it is, in fact, based on actual dialects, all the better. Note that there are interwikis to four other Wikipedias.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Links LiveJournal of Zolotaryov and Internet site "volgota group" by Zolotaryov. Then APN - "The experiments on creation of Siberian language should be lauded" (1 phrase somehow related), Kazakh and others - internet articles about Zolotaryov and his experiment. Not a single reference to any academic sources, since I assume the Zolotatyov mentioned in this articles is the same User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, I assume no academic references exist. Then I would suggest to publish something in referred sources then put it here. This the policy of WP:NOR and WP:V abakharev 04:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Alexander Gouk 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has 5 prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is from belarussian wiki, his contributions http://be.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A1%D0%BF%D1%8D%D1%86%D1%8B%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%8F:Contributions&target=Alexander+Gouk

Keep Siberians! Delete Muscovites! - rutopist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.33.22.253 (talk • contribs)

User has no prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to various reasons I gave in the previous undeletion request, here is another one: the request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately. An old discussion about WP's conlang policy makes pointed to the conclusion, that having a wikipedia in itself may not be a reason for having an article, but it strongly contributes to its notability. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMuscovites fear this cultural movement. Roman Baiduk [email protected]

Keep, per Nlsanand. Article may need to be re-classified, but, besides that, seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article about OR. There are articles about each and every pop-culture thingy, so why not about this?
The claim of non-existence of S.L. looks redundant, as the lead already tells that it's an initiative (article could benefit from explicitly stating so, though).

That talks it's based on do not exist, I doubt -- I remember reading "Parting with Matyora" ("Прощание с Матёрой"), and (Siberian) people there talked quite like that.

Finally, for the assessing of the codification attempt itself, I think we'd have to wait for the scholars' word. End of problem? Yury Tarasievich 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep This language even will have the Wikipedia soon. It means that the community have already made its decission about the "natural" roots of Siberian! be:User:Booxter
Delete per previous AfD and per nominator, and because this subject is formally unverifiable in the English Wikipedia, as the sources listed above are not in English (which has been a consistent problem in discussing this article). This is not a language or dialect as commonly understood, it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience. This bears every appearance of being an astroturfing campaign; Yaroslav Zolotaryov is a leader in the web community which promotes this. Note that the article describes it as a "standardised language" which appears to be a WP:NPOV failure. Just zis Guy you know? 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily be in English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion about High Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go - i know Russian, but i live in Israel, so i think i'm rather neutral, does that count? You'll just have to believe me that i'm rather indifferent to the politics of Moscow vs. Siberia vs. Belarus vs. Ukraine. I also know a few things about Linguistics (that's my major) and in particular about Slavic linguistics and dialectology. And based on all of the above i can say that this project is valid:
It's true that it may be done by a small group - but the creation of Esperanto (spoken by over a millions now) and the creation of modern spoken Hebrew (spoken by over 6 million now) were also works of very small groups.

It's true that this group has a certain "national" agenda, but it is very haphazard and i didn't see anything extremist or outright anti-Russian in it.

It's true that to speakers of Russian this language looks like Cockney or Redneck English put to writing, but they completely ignore the fact that it has a dictionary of over 20,000 words and a complete grammar.

They also ignore the fact that this grammar is rather different from Russian. The verb tense system is radically different, it has the definite article which is completely absent in Russian, and it has different phonology. All these things are very well documented as actual features of Northern Russian dialects. Now a group comes and makes a literary language out of these dialects. Let me tell you a secret - many major literary world languages started out as compromises between several dialects that were codified by scientists and promoted in schools by governments. After a few generations they became natural languages. Such are German, Indonesian and Urdu, for example.

Please don't let ignorance influence your decisions. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a multilanguage project and presence of the English sources is not obligatory term. See WP:V

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.

--Yakudza 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have founded some refrences even IN ENGLISH for him, see the talk page. Blinova was my teacher in Tomsk univercity, I have saw thousands of tapes with records of old siberian dialect, very many cards with the words, hard work of our dialectologists --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Siberian language - quickly developing project of the literary language, he is founded on real dialects. For removing this article voted basically on political reason. This only linguistical project, but not political. Why about completely artificial language Slovio exists the article in Wikipedia, but about language, founded on real dialect no? Previous nomination on removing was for little stub, presently this big and good article. --Yakudza 13:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. In the first VfD I would probably have voted for deletion as well, but it is obvious that a lot has changed in the meantime. Besides, it's true that the original version was nothing but an ugly stub. Given the fact that a) there will soon be a wikipedia in this language; b) there seem to be plenty of people who use it and the testwiki is flourishing; c) it has been mentioned, or even described, more than once in the Russian press - I think preservation of this article is more than warranted. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should vote formally. Keep, of course. Artificial or not, the language lives in Siberian wiki and in siberian sites. The words were taken from veriable sources. In fact, Russian language is more conlang than Siberian, constructed by Lomonosov on Church Slavonic base. But languages like Ukranian, Belarusian and Siberian were collected from real farmers' dialects and have natural rights to survive and develop. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I talked to Yaroslav a bit; it seems reasonable to have this article here. Timichal 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I don't see any reason for delete. There is everything clear for this article.--Ottorahn 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel archer (talk • contribs)
Delete. A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years. The bulk of the article, "Historical survey" section must be moved into something like Siberian dialects of Russian language, but the self-promotion of a certain "standartization" effort is a way too overhyped. `'mikka (t) 18:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also find it despicable that the advocates substitute the question of validity of "Zolotaryov Siberian language" (the topic of the article) by the discussion about Old siberian dialects. Of course Old Siberian dialects is a valid topic. But we are not deleting it! We are trying to delete Zolotaryov's hobby. `'mikka (t) 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What are you so exercised about? Maybe it is a constructed language; so what? We have lots of articles about constructed langauges.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what? I've never heard anybody complain about Tolkien's hobby or Zamenhof's hobby. I really don't think that matters. What matters is only this question: is the language significant enough for inclusion? Given the number of articles written about it, the fact that there is a community of users, and the fact that there is going to be a wikipedia in it, I believe there is.

Let me also point out that this language seems to be part of the grey area between natural languages and constructed languages. It is constructed, but for 100 % based on natlang stuff, and apparently made with the intention of it becoming a spoken language. Another case in point: Rumantsch Grischun, created in 1982 on the basis of various Rhaetoromance dialects. Nobody would deny its notability, and many living languages started their carreers the same way. A frequently used method of distinguishing natural languages from constructed languages is this: as soon as a language has second-generation native speakers, it cannot be classified any longer as a constructed language. However, no one would argue that this would be a condition for inclusion here. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 19:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting analogy. What does Wikipedia say about Romansh? "Romansh is not a single language but a group of closely-related dialects, all belonging to the family of the Rhaeto-Romance languages." And: "Romansh was standardised in 1982 by Zürich-based linguist Heinrich Schmid. The standardised language, called Rumantsch Grischun, has not been very well accepted, and speakers of the different dialects tend to address one another in German." Of course, Wikipedia has an article on Romansh - as it is considered an offical "language" of Switzerland and literature in the Engadine dialect exists since the 16th century. Where are the books IN Siberian? --Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep (I can't read Russian and can't evaluate all the sources), but please expand more on the "Volgota cultural group". It may not be notable enough for a separate article but it should be described a bit more in connection with this language. Presently there is just one sentence about the development of the modern standardization; most of the article seems to be about the various dialects from which this language was developed. Also, the various sources that Zolotaryov cites in this discussion and on the article's talk page should be integrated into the article itself as a References section. --Jim Henry 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since. (И вообще, задолбали, в натуре.) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article that was AfD'ed last time was a completely different article.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails WP:V. While time may be given to some articles to find sources, the fact that this has already been afd'd and uninamiously deleted weigh heavily against it. Am leaning towards speedy delete as one unsourced article about a topic could be argued as substansially similar to another, even if the unsourced information differs in the new article. Regards, MartinRe 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does WP:V say that external links don't count? This article contains 8 sources besides the link to the Volgota group's home page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links. Basically external links is an external "see also" section. If information in the article comes from one of the external links, it should be moved into a references/sources section and an appropiate note added to the information indicating which source it came from. Regards, MartinRe 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the external links, unless I'm mistaken, are sources demonstrating that the thing discussed in the article exists. That being the case, this seems like more of a formatting problem than anything else. Yaroslav should fix it. How do you justify using deletion as a remedy, though?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what does it mean [language] is standardised form of ...? Standardized by whom? There was similar AfD on artificial High Icelandic - the result was keep (per most of Icelanders here) but at least the text clearly defines status of the language. Pavel Vozenilek 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe correct expression should be "project of standardosation"? I am not sure what English word will be correct. In fact, Pomors have other project of standardization of Northern Russian, represented in Pomor site, very similiar to Siberian Language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very confused by Pavel's question. The intro to the article reads, "The Siberian language or Sibirskoj (сибирской говор) is standardised form of certain Northern Russian dialects. It was developed by the Volgota cultural group in 2005." What is the question, again?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "Volgota cultural group" have formal or informal authority to standardize a language? That's the point. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer with a question: the Kurdish language is definitely real and natural. Does any group has any formal authority in Syria or Turkey to standartise it? No, because those countries see it as threatening separatism. Does it make the Kurdish language any less real? Now the proposed Siberian language is just as real - it is based on real dialects that were never before put to writing. Who gives anyone any authority to use any language? It's anyone's freedom to use any language he wants. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now the definition was changed to "constructed language", so question about authority has no meaning, conlang may be completely invented. Actually the opposite part tries to change discussion topic in all this AfD process. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep it. No way. I see no reasons to delete it. -- 82.209.xx.xx 12:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as shameless self-promotion. bogdan 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is not a language but a artificial slang developed in LiveJournal blog of Yaroslav Zolotarev, ukranian separatist. This article was deleted from here and from ruwiki as this is not correct to write about "3 millions of native speakers". That's no more that yet another flashmod. Please do not refer to Meta discussion: this is all lie (I don't know why there're 15 'against' votes while I've seen 34 - I failed to locate this edit). There they insist on existance of 8 native speakers, but that's fake too. Edward Chernenko 14:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward, aren't you the same guy who promotes a plan for a "Padonki" Wikipedia? Padonki being, according to Wikipedia, "a subculture within the Russian-speaking Internet originating on Udaff, which is characterized by choosing alternative spellings for words for comic effect, as well as gratuitous use of profanity and a penchant for obscene subjects." It takes a lot of moxy to be for that but against this!—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was reduction ad absurdum only. I have no personal interest in this idea and I'm not a proposer. Edward Chernenko 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The words "ukranian separatist" well demonstrate how educated is their author. Ukrainians have no need in separatism, they for long times are independent state. And I am not Ukrainian, though I have many friends Ukrainians, who like Siberian language. And the rest of message is lie, very refutable (ложь, легко опровержимая). --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. per Edward Chernenko. Elk Salmon 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is as valid as High Icelandic and Anglish. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (i studied it a little). --Amir E. Aharoni 21:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity per bogdan. - FrancisTyers · 23:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't quite understand what's going on here. The Siberian language is an initiative on codification of certain Siberian talks (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about), undertaken by some organisation (which I, and lots of others present don't know anything about). The article honestly states all this, and why should it be exactly deleted? Re-classified, possibly. Un-scholar, now? Let's see the scholar sources saying so. And there is such thing on en.wiki as an article about purely invented and quite possibly un-scholar Klingon_language. So? Yury Tarasievich 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's about notability. There are only some blogs and forum threads, and promotion of SL in Wikipedia is a frequent subject of them. [75]. --Vladimir Volokhonsky 08:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST DELETE, this language is an original research "invented" by a small group of people supporting separatist movements in Siberia. Sources mr. Zolotaryov has provided do not prove his point of view. Also note the amount of meatpuppets. MaxSem 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "language" is a fake invented by Yaroslav Zolotaryov for his political intentions. It includes some real words from dialects of Russian used in Siberia, but most of its "dictionary" have no connection to Siberia, and even to Slavic languages. He lied several times that this language is natural, that there are millions of native speakers - no more trust for him, he is just a LIAR. MaxiMaxiMax 07:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And theese "some real words" are 13.000 in number. Please give one example of word "invented" by me. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people. The sources provided is not about subject of this article. --Vladimir Volokhonsky 07:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they not about subject? Volgota and siberian language mentioned in them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This language is nothing but fake. They claim they have more than 10000 words in dictionary, but actually they only heaped up various words in haste, without verifing root congruence: for example, "terrorist" is "страхолюд": "страх" + "люд", but there is no such word as "страх" in this "language", but "траш" instead. --Boleslav1 08:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the official dictionary in the wiki and online dictionaries in Ukraine and Volgota. The word you cite is just the proof of non-artificial nature of the language - siberians have both roots, траш and страх, and they did not ask you from what root they must make the words))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Siberians" use normal russian language, nobody of sound mind would say "страхолюд" instead of "террорист". --Boleslav1 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those who came from European Russia during industrialiazation, people who destroyed our nature, who made collectivization and privatization, people who destroyed our language and our traditional culture, yes, they speak russian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! My uncle come from forgotten village on Yenisei, he is siberian born and bred, his parents and ancestry lived there for a few centuries. Anyway, he speaks pure russian. Maybe you are talking about real natives - Chukchi, Evenk and others, but they have their own language. --Boleslav1 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)))))) Very riduculous)))))) Centuries ago there was even NO RUSSIAN STANDARD, but dialects were very different, especcially different from Old Church Slavonic, in which modern standard is based. Give any refrences, but not false stories about your relatives))))))) You make me really laugh))))) What also you will say about your invented Enisey relatives?))) Maybe they invented Russian standard earlier than Lomonosov and Pushkin)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material per the first AFD and the susequent DRV. This is a constructed language of interest to a handful of people, who have apparently decided to use Wikipedia to promote their project.--Ezeu 09:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Probably delete due to its non-notability outside Wikipedia. ~~Keep~~ If the article is kept, we should keep an eye on the article to avoid any possibility to turn it into a lying promotinal stuff of the invented language and the group behind it. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC), 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe dutch version of Jan may be taken as NPOV? He mentions POV of enemies of the language there, but he writes many about the language itself. Also, Jan is professional linguist and speaks about the thing professionaly. Maybe simply translate the Dutch version? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that easy, but translation of the Dutch version would be interesting anyway. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinds het voor het eerst werd gepubliceerd, heeft het Siberisch enige bekendheid verworven. De meningen over de taal zijn verdeeld: Oekraïense en Wit-Russische nationalisten verwelkomen het project. Hetzelfde geldt ook voor vertegenwoordigers van nationale minderheden binnen Rusland. Russische nationalisten aan de andere kant zijn fel tegen het project gekant. Beide kanten zien het Siberisch als een typische uiting van regionalisme, of zelfs van separatisme. Hierdoor heeft het project een uitgesproken politiek karakter gekregen en is het moeilijk tot een objectieve beoordeling van de taal zelf te komen" He writes that political discussions about the project make the founding of objective view hard, but the other part of his articles describes language features in neutral way. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Need to be reclassified as a dialect --Дмитрий Никитин—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.141.215.53 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It is not dialect. It is colang that uses some dialect words. Dialect is someting people speak, not someting that only exist in LJKneiphof 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... that uses 13 000 dialect words)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong deleate. The majoraty of keep-voters thinks that if Siberian is not a language, it can still be seen as dialect. The truth is, that it is neither real language, neither it is a dialect. It is not real language because it is a colang, invented in 2005. It is not known outside LJ. The references above the discussion are not fake, but they are not about this constructed language, but about real dialects of Siberia. Those dialects are spoken in villages, but not widely. So-called siberian language uses some words from this dialects, but it is still a colang. Nobody speaks it. I think you should note that MaxiMaxiMax voted "deleate". He is native Siberian himself, and he lives in Tomsk, one of the oldest cities of Siberia. And if he says that nobody speaks "siberian", I would rather believe him. Kneiphof 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I am also Siberian who live in Tomsk, many members of Volgota live in Tomsk and Irkutsk. So if you found some admin from ruwiki, who vote against siberian language, it is not proof to anything --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep refs at least show it got serious media coverage. Hmm... I gotta invent Uralic language or something... Grue 12:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grue, please look at these refs carefully. This Siberian language was invented in 2005, while the books wich are used as refs were published before. How can they be refs to the Siberian language if they are older than this language?!! These are the refs to the various siberian dialects. Kneiphof 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this dialects were codified in the language... --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant of course the refs at the end of the article, not those at the top of this AfD. I am an inclusionist and if this "language" is mentioned by different media outlets, I consider it to be notable. Grue 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May be it's still not a real language, but it is definitely a widespread phenomenon. So it should be saved in Wikipedia - possibly just being re-categorized as "artificial language". --Shao 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a widespread phenomenon. It's just an unpopular slang that used by several people over internet. They have own community when they inventing this new 'language'. All of them presented in this poll. They just trying to make own language, which is just slang, like F, Zh languages etc. Elk Salmon 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And all that you have said is lie without any veriable refrences --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha, not all of us presented in this poll. Soon will be actions in Tomsk, and you shal see all of us:-) Long live Siberia! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The deletetion is Russian Nazis' initiative. Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture.--Kojpiš Anton 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has no prior edits.--Pan Gerwazy 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is from siberian incubator wiki. His edits: http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Coipition%27Tong

Please withstand of russophobie here. Elk Salmon 12:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not russophobie, my belorussian friend speak about Russian Nayis who are against Siberian language, but not about russians in general --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't any russophobie. I estabilish a fact, that Russian Nazis against Siberians.--Kojpiš Anton 00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per Kneiphof. --Kaganer 13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And 80% of opposition have come from ruwiki in last 24 hours) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ну дык! [76] --Yakudza 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate the link provided by Yakudza - "Let us reveal awarenes, and quickly" (reveal awareness - this is Bolshevik slang when they want to accuse somebody) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Вероятно, они просто хотят завалить голосование количеством высираемого бреда))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with that? Do you normally discriminate people based on their origin? Are you a fascist?? Do your psycho childonian friends once again wish to "drown Muscovites in ther own blood"???? Guinness man 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, this is politically motivated russian flashmob, and all)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No Zolotaryovian! The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics remotely based on some very old obsolete Russian dialects. This crap does not represent neither Siberia nor Novgorod nor whatever else wild shit they claim to represent. This is not a zilch more credible than Padonki. No Padonki means no Zolotaryovian. Guinness man 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE: I wonder how this subject is again on discussion, probably people who allow it didn’t even devote a day to researching this language. Its an invented language by a couple of russophobs (or even only one). The "siberian language" is a fantasy which is only based on different dialects all over Siberia (just look at area of it and imagine how many EU countries fit in it).i underline the word DIFFERENT as sometimes met in one village is not met in another (due to very local dialect) Sometimes its not even a dialects it’s a word or phrases used in a single village for a generation or two and noticed nowhere exept that place (its like a “local slang” if we say it modern in words. But Zolotorev makes it a point even if it was used only on 0,1% of Siberian territory and only by around hundred of people living in a village (I probably will insult Zolotarev saying that every yard has its own slang but whatever). Also many of this language is based on phrases of uneducated population and what is presented by Zolotarev as a grammar or phrase building structure due to cutting endings or putting them in to the wrong plague. The bases of all this Zolotorev’s insanity is an old russian (which is no longer used and which was used ALL OVER RUSSIA and not only in Siveria), and when this platform is not enough - mr. Zolotarev takes an Ukrainian language and invents smth from this. As a greatest development of fantasy mr Zolotorev even was thinking of giving Siberean an arabian writing, but I think now he had to give it up coz its “too much”. Also some sources given here by zolotorev are not standing on his point of view or even sometimes made with his cooperation (web sources). I ask mr.Zolotarev not to comment my message (he wont get an answer anyway) because i'm sick enough of his lifejournal messages asking to vote for keeping his language fantasy in wikipedia and I will not devote my time for discussing his fantasies. 213.171.61.131 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Jaroslav S.[reply]

And we have test wiki of 1500 articles, and 10 writers write there in this "invented Old Russian" Siberian wikipedia now is the best wiki in incubator --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. 212.40.42.166 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE per Kneiphof. Serebr 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User made 6 edits. Grue 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am from Russian Wiki (Анатолий) -- Serebr 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Its typical moskovian fobia. They told the same about ukrainian language earlier. They told and even now tolk, that ukrainian is non native language just austro-hungary project.
STRONG DELETE Andrey Fedichkin 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep - My keep is neither strong nor weak. It's just a keep per Amir E. Aharoni Flying Jazz 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE per Kneiphof. Vlad2000Plus 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG COMMENT. People, this is nót the place to fight a world war! This is nót the place for Russian nationalists and Siberian separatists to decide upon the future of Russia. This is an encyclopedia. All that should matter is the question: is the subject significant enough to warrant an article? The emotions that it seems to evoke in certain circles seem like a good indication that the language is perhaps a tad more notable than the average conlang (which definitely would not evoke such reactions). For the record, I think all the campaigning around this AfD is a Bad Thing: trying to whip up support in the Russian wiki (where the article was voted down) and among people who voted for deletion previous, is surely not a very elegant thing to do! Oh, and please, STOP WRITING IN CAPITALS, because it reminds pretty much of shouting. Which is not very elegant either. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vreemd, jij bent de enige waarvan ik tekst in hoofdletters zie. (of adden 'k ik dit int West-Vlams moetn srievn?)--Pan Gerwazy 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable conlang without ISO 639 code. Angr 18:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.5.46.19 (talk • contribs)
delete wikipedia, save Ochkarik 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Even if it is just a constructed language, it is at least a notable phenomenon. Gwarnik 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP 85.202.213.101 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per Kneiphof and Angr. --Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of Yaroslav Zolotaryov's sources (http://lab.org.ua/article/727/) has the protagonist of the language Dmitry Werkhoturov say "Может быть, к концу своей жизни я и услышу живой сибирский язык." Perhaps, at the end of my life I will even be able to hear living Siberian language. (Yes, "will be able" because he uses the perfective verb) This is what this is about. Irpen is right, this should be Siberian dialect or plain Siberian. It is not a language.--Pan Gerwazy 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just renamed the article into "Siberian language project", hopefully it's not a violation of any policy. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy (as far as I know) against renaming articles mid-AfD. In any case, my rationale to delete the article still stands. The project is non-notable. --Ezeu 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason looks quite sensible. I changed my vote from "keep" to "not sure". Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a sufficiently notable conlang in that it has generated substantial press attention. All of you Russian/Siberian fellows, could you please discuss the merits of this conlang on the article talk page and not here? Sandstein 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I'm sure it's really free encyclopedia, so i think we need to find the motivation of both sides in this qeustion. The motivation of delete'rs is not very clear, but the motivation of keep'rs is just to respect own native language. Remember - nation is alive until language is alive. We have no any rights to kill this language, anyone of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluz (talk • contribs)
Strong delete This is not real language, it was compilated from most "non-russian pronounced" dialectic words of different Russian regions. Nobody said this langauge using currently codified combination of words. Every russian may understand most of talks of regions - but Siberian is strongly understandable by many native Russian from cities and from far regions.--ShurShur, from ruwiki 21:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified and, as such, fails WP:V and is not suitable for the English Wikipedia. BlueValour 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said earlier: Frankly, I can't see why the references must necessarily be in English. Is there any policy regarding that? If so, I'd be very unpleasantly surprised, as it would show utter disregard for the non-Anglosaxon rest of the world! It would be strange if we would apply a similar policy in the Dutch wikipedia (in fact, in a similar discussion about High Icelandic we didn't even complain about all references being in Icelandic!). In any case, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who know enough Russian to be able to confirm the sources. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I do not know, if the majority of votes is rellevant in this discussion. You can see - almost every Russian votes "delete", every ukrainian and belorussian "keep". Everybody knows, that amount of Russians is greater, than amount of ukrainians and belorussians. But is this vote about amount of Russians in wikipedia or about the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support pbato I have to say my full support to STRONG COMMENT published by Iron Jan. This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it.

STRONG KEEP . Just the existance of such phrase in several sources prompts for an article that would define them, explain, describe. This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too. It is disputable, of course, how to define and describe the phenomena, but we can not deny the existance for it. Only this extensieve discussion is already a proof. If there is such a strong opposition to something - it can not be caused by meaningless stuff. And I guess why some people here oppose... but Russia is changing too. Whether they want it or not. And the best way to deal with it - to get involved into this change, my friends...--Bryndza 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edward Chernenko. --Nikolay Kolpakov 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MartinRe and Angr. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A set of words is not a language. --CodeMonk 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Siberian is set of texts but not set of words 2) this argument is irrelevant to discussion. When russians will cease talk here about politics, about their relatives from Siberian vilages, etc? The voting is about notability of conlang. All the proofs about it's notablity are given. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a set of words. It's also a complete grammar with roots in actual spoken dialects and a bunch of text, translated and even a few original ones. In its current state the grammar is incomplete and somewhat haphazard, but its ideas has undeniable scientific roots. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. But I also strongly recommend to modify the article in view of the neutrality concept. Maksym Ye. 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current edition was filled with politics by russian "editors". I strongly propose restore Nat Krause's version, which was politically neutral, and linguistically more interesting, than to read all this accusations. Is it interesting for english-speaking reader to see all this shit about "anti-russian" language in the article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yaroslav, this your claim is just another quite fine illustration of your deeds. Nat Krause's descriptions were not changed (except at the single insignificant place). Only your deceitful promo texts were corrected. Despite you didn't write that exactly that those "russian editors" were changing Nat Krause's text, you wrote is a way that one would think so. It's so of you... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean just this phrase "Unfortunately, ...", etc. This is your POV, it is related with politics, and you want to include it into linguistic article. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this interesting linguistic approach is significantly corrupted by the "anti-Moscovite" agenda and ties with proclamation of "Siberian independence". This is clearly expressed your political Volgota-phobic POV. What does it do in the linguistic article? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is quite resonable to have links to generally unknown project from Wikipedia: it helps to the Page Rank a lot. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volgota has rather big Page Rank and you can see this in propriate places, Best way for reader to get acquainted with the language more is to jump to it's main site; however, I do not insist that link to Volgota site should be included in the article. Let your greed be your own sin) I am discussing only the political shit in mouthes of russian "voters" who do not know what are they speaking about, but have come here to save Mother Russia, and those accusations in the article, which you so strongly want to include --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Slav, and your "Siberian" language is quite comprehensible to me. Aren't these and these YOUR own words on the main page of your project at Incubator?! (Translation: "July 17 - Independence Day. July 17, 1918 The Siberian State passed Declaration of Siberian Sovereignity. ... Hail Siberia!") Is this about linguistics?! Whom are you trying to cheat?! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is russian paranoia at play))) What relation has word "Long live Siberia!" in siberian wikipedia to the description of the conlang? I did not write anything about politics in the article, but russians did. So all this political aspect here is only your guilt. Please acknowledge, that all your speeches here is lie, and you have only one motivation, only one goal - you fear Siberians, you fear Free Siberia. So you want to bring your politics, your fear even to this non-political article. My friend Xcobo, he is Lojban lover, said in his LJ about all this "discussion" - "if this is simple non-notable conlang, even simple conlang like Lojban and Esperanto, so why had they come with so big accusations in big amount? They simply feel the strange power of this Language and they fear it". Such were words of non-wikipedic and non-Siberian person about all this meeting, which was prepared by ruwiki in best traditions of Stalin's "judgements". Go back to your Russia, bring your hands back from Siberian Language! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have many articles in ruwiki, glorifying Russia, and I do not come to the article "Russian language", and do not write in it - Unfortunately, Russian language was language of cursed Empire, tool for killing dissidents and opressing nations, but you shamelessly did this in article about Siberian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is about linguistics. The work on the language is linguistic work and not just a bunch of words with funny spelling. If you think that this is also a political issue, then you just can't get a joke.

Someone said that "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" (maybe it was Uriel Weinreich, but i am not sure.) I don't think that Mr. Zolotaryov has an army and a navy to fight for Siberian independence, so don't you worry about his little jokes about it. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that is not a joke. Further readings (about army, by the way :-) ): These are Yaroslav Zolotaryov's words too (at the main page of Siberian Wikipedia Incubator): "January 29 - Day of Siberian Army. On January 29, 1918 squads of the Free Siberian Army began to be formed. Let's make 10 000 articles in Siberian Wikipedia before the Day of Siberian Armed Forces! Hail Siberia!" Ok. And the fact that "Volgota" means "Liberty" is just another so-called "linguistic joke". And after that you dare to say that Yaroslav doesn't have any political agenda! :-/. If his project was a pure linguistic one, it wouldn't meet such a strong opposition. I suppose it's quite wrong to allow him to hide his political agenda by "linguistics". There's no strong opposition against Zaliznyak's Old Novgorodian Language. Guess, why. :-/ Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is not about political aspects, even if they would be. So you want to bring politics in non-political affairs, and write your political POV in the linguistic article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Siberian language project is just a mean of your political movement, and therefore it can't be kept alone. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you own recognize, that fearing political aspects of the language, you had come here to lie about it, and all your russian votes is in fact against Siberian independece, but not against the article. But Siberian independence is not discussed in original article, that were you who began discuss it there and in this discussion. There was nothing about politics in Nat's variant, so please restore NPOV version. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I think, there's no chance that the discussed article will be turn into the promo-page of your non-notable (outside Wikipedia) conlang. As for me, prove that even single my word is wrong, before saying that I'm lying. :-/ Anyway, the judge is the community. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you think it should be turned into promo page of Russian imperialism:-) I have proved everything, and I have answered to everything, even to the political accusations, though they are completely irrelevant. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. As I said above, the judge is the community. And despite your activity may hide the reality for a short, eventually the truth will come to the light. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this truth was already revealed by neutral particpants like Jan, Amir, etc. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete. notability/verifiability problem. A linguistics-related article cannot be based solely on publications in second-rate newspapers and websites (and author's site). This is not a "Hurricane Catrina" news stuff. This is science, which should be verified by experts in the area, not by paparazzi and bloggers. Mukadderat 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should verify this science? Notability of conlang? It is notable, which is verified by this newspaper publications --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. Was deleted in russian wikipedia too. --Morpheios Melas 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... And was not deleted in 6 wikipedias, 4 official, 2 incubator wikipedias ... --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about "non-notable conlang". This is song in Siberian Standard, translation of "We shall overcome" http://volgota.com/muzika/overcomesib.mp3 Our friends from Sweden have recorded it. After a week will be Volgota Congress in Tomsk, so we shall have more links to newspapers, and maybe some scientific publications. Some people from other Siberian cities and from siberian emigration to EU already have plane tickets. This is objective process of demorcatization in Russia, of democratization in language too. And band of conservators can not stop it by lie and by nationalistic flashmobes. Your time is passed, and our time is coming. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, once more: Different dialects in Siberia DO definitely exist. But your Siberian language IS definitely a conlang. It is incorrect to use references to works on Siberian dialects as if they were on your Siberian conlang. It seems to be clear enough... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite correct, language Standard is based on them and every Northern dialect speaker can recognize the words. Just your opression makes the language movement more political - you opress by unknown reasons, so members of the movement became more angry. You can see in Wiki just top leaders of linguistic department, but in reality this is wide international movement, so all your efforts is in vain. Will the article be in wikipedia, or will not be, will be siberian wiki or will not be, this is objective process, it will develop anyway. One of my ukrainian friends tried to explain this to you already. After a week it will be liturgy in Siberian language in Tomsk, we have priests, and we have intention to make the language sacral --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All your base are belong to us", er? :-) Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of the new projects (and neither for fighting the project too). Wikipedia should just contain correct verifiable information. As and if the project is notable enough, it will be included into the Wikipedia for sure. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not promote it in fact the other side tries to kill article about language widely disputed everwhere, and you do this by evident dirty tricks like changung the topic of discussion to politics or to discussing Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't try to promote the project, please keep silence and don't touch the article. If the project is really notable, the article will live without your intervention. If your target is not to promote the project, just don't promote, and let the community decide what to do; it's that easy! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only answer to you silly questions. All the promotion is done by hordes from ruwiki, which were invited from Community Portal of ruwiki, and cry all kinds of nonsense here. Please cease lie and cease change topic of the article, and I shall cease to answer you, this is very simple. You just want to include the politics in the article in order that the article will look like article promoting political movement when this is only article about language standardization project --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article about politic project should reveal it, not hide. Period. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you 1) change the topic of the article to promotion 2) appeal to delete it as promo-article. This is your tactics --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this "All your base are belong to us" is just about you. Discussion proves that you only repeat some words like spell, but you even do not know their meaning, words like "conlang, dialect, language standard" etc. Every linguist involved in the discussion tried to explain their meaning for you, but you simply repeat them again and again, hoping that "judge is community", as you have said. Actually you want only force the community to delete article, repeating the same flood in the discussion. You wait that people will get tired of this and they will close the discussion. This funny tactics can only damage ruwiki reputaion in russian net-community, and in other discussions, not about siberian, already damaged it. You can read a lot of critics about wikipedia in russian LJ just because you did this thing in similiar way in other discussions. Maybe it is time to stop it? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite wrong thinking that I know few about conlangs and Russian dialects. You say "every linguist"? Ok, every linguist sees differences in scientific approaches (that you claim to be useless, putting a huge resources in Tomsk State University (one that you attended) to null) and those you use. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see this russian liguists, who are against me, here, only some western linguists trying explain something to you, and angry guy DrBug, who do not want to cease write offtopic and very-very want to fill linguistic article with political accusations --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give one example of "invented" word, please give it)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another illustration of your manners. Conlang is not necessary consist of words that nobody has ever used. And I've already pointed that. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is another illustration of your hypocrisy. Language is based in dialects - this is real thesis which you can not disprove. Being not able to disprove you simply repeat some slogans for a week, and this tactics is stupid and evident --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where's the hypocrisy? In a statement that "Siberian language" is invented by you? that the fact it uses some natural words doesn't turn it into a natural language? Hm. If this is hypocrisy, the Earth is flat. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the words it used is natural, and you continuosly try to change disscussion topic only for prohibit the article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your group even filled Meta with totally stupid promotion to open wiki in Padonki slang - such was you fear of Siberian Language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My group?! Sorry, I don't have any group. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You supported them. Please cease attempts to change discussion topic --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's you who should cease arrogating crimes to me. The discussion became boring, anyway. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let us stop the discussion, it is irrelevant to the topic and it goes to nowhere, only to increasing of hate between us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happy to stop the discussion per se. But as a person who knows something about a topic, I have to point your incorrect statements to persons who know less on it. As soon as you stop writing incorrect statements, I'll stop commenting here. Here's an incomplete list of facts that you try to conceal:

The Siberian language project is your (together with few dozens of active supporters, most or all of whom are not linguists) project to construct a language (conlang) based on real Russian dialects spoken in different places of Siberia (by Chaldons and others).
You (and your group) are "Siberian" nationalist(s) (some are anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists), and the Siberian language project is a part of your efforts to create preconditions for separating Siberia from Russia (leaving it our of control of government of Russian Federation).
The Siberian language project is considered non-scientific by many linguists.
The Siberian language project is young, and created in 2005 only. References to publications before this date can't be used as sign of notability of the project.

It's that easy! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you may repeat all this fantasies 10 000 times, they will not become true, but shameless lie. Why do you repeat them more and more? You are not sure in them yourself perhaps? All this is lie, and I have already answered to this. So you believe that constantly repeated lie became truth? I do not believe so. Please stop speak nonsense irrelevant to discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the last sentence is top of russian argumentation here))))))))))) How can we use refrences to publications about the project before date when project starts))))))))))) We only use refrences about dialect on which it is based of course))))))))))))) You do flood only for admins that they stop the discussion --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the very beginning of this discussion. Where Alex writes that 'There is no published books on this "language"' (clearly about your Siberian language project), and you response that "This is lie." and cite a number of books about Russian dialects, not your Siberian language project. This your normal way of discussions. Ok, I'm sure that others are able to read and to find your misinformation. I don't think it's reasonable to argue with you directly. But if any really neutral mediator is interested in finding the truth between us, welcome! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If any definitely neutral user will ask me, I will provide citations for all the statements above. You wrote too much in internet, Yaroslav, so it's too late to try to hide. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 12:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this in talk page of the article --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very interesting for me to discuss every sentence of proposed article, this is my project, but not in this place, because you do not discuss the notability, but content --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who started to talk about changes in the article's content. But ok, it doesn't matter. To make the discussion clear, could you please sum up below all the statements that you consider to be illustrations of the notability of the project? Please don't put here references to books published before you started you work on this project or other weakly related stuff. Please put here only facts directly related to the project, such as a number of people directly involved in creation of the language descriptions (core team), which conferences were held and when and number of their attendees, and so on. Also you may wish to expose your and your team credentials to the public. It may help to the community to make a right decision. Despite I'm sure in all these things that I wrote above, I'm quite interested in establishing as more correct facts about the project that may help to Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 16:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the refrences about project itself were given in the article. Some of them were removed by the oppisite part. I can discuss about those removed refrences for example and prove that they hav relation to the project. But according to wikimedia polices, if something was mentioned in the press, the article sholud be. But you only speak about politics, about dialects etc, when your friends try to take refrences from the article, that's all. All your speeches in this place are only demagogia with one goal - change the topic of the discussion when the answer is clear: the project is mentioned in press and the article should be in wiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yaroslav, I'm talking about notability (as per your own request). So don't run away! Please put here precise list of clear and strong statements illustrating notability of your project. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 17:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT policy only prohibits OR and unverifiable info, but we provide about 9 links not from my blog and not from my site, and not from any other blogs. Your friend deleted 3 of them, but 6 of them even your politically motivated friends can not delete. So if it was mentioned in press (and will be mentioned more in the next month), it is notable --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So will you anytime discuss this refrences, but not to talk here about your politics and about your opinion on the language? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yaroslav, first: they are not my friends. By the way, I would mention, that originally my vote was "keep", and only after discussion here I changed it to "not sure".
Now, please confirm that you mean the following links (then I will disclose their content to the public, and the community will then decide whether or not they indicate the notability):

(APN news agency, positive)

Three screefuls article is devoted to idea of decentralistion of Russia and turning it into a weak union of independet regions. The only mention of Siberian laguage project is following: "Так что сегодняшние «виртуальные» эксперименты по реконструкции, к примеру, сибирского языка можно только приветствовать." ("So current "vitrual" experiments to reconstruct a Siberian language may be only saluted."; "Siberian language" links to Volgota site.) It can't be considered as a coverage of the project in a press.

kazakh web paper dialog.kz Verhoturov (Kazakhstan article, positive)

An article about Volgota project and Zolotaryov. Siberian language project is mentioneed as a part of the movement. As for the "Dialog.KZ" site, it is on-line-only resource, and I'm not sure that it should be considered as a public mass media.

(Ukrainian article, positive)
(Tomsk news agency Inform Tomica, positive)
(Ural tatar artıcle, positive)
("Zavtra" russian nationalst newspaper, call to destroy Volgota group)
Kasparov Ru article, very positive, speaking about violence of human rights and prohibiting Siberian language in Russia.
"Russian Journal", main net-magazine of Russian Internet Community, discussing contents of test sibwiki -

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is our links, Volgota, or language mentioned in this articles--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered my close of this AFD, and have relisted it for further discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm a fan of conlanging, but this strikes me more as an attempt to promote a private project than as a writeup of a notable conlang. POV and weasel words just add to the problem. Ergative rlt 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexed Question - I've read this AfD discussion twice, and I still don't know what the hell is going on. here is the russian wikipedia article; I have no idea what that says, but it's pretty obvious that the article is in trouble on that wiki. A bigger issue is, what should be the normal procedure when clearly the majority of the productive writing is going to take place in the Russian wiki? Isn't it most reasonable (at least for this article) for the EN wiki to just follow their lead? My Alt Account 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no - that would be like using the Persian wiki as a reference for information about Israel. Most Russians really hate it when someone gets funny ideas about their language and will dismiss them on sight. --Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this doesn't really answer my question. I've no doubt that many Russians are very nationalistic, and some of these let it get in the way of logic. But the plain fact is there are obviously hardly any non-Russian, native English speakers who can even evaluate the sources on this article. It seems like a waste of time for us to even debate it. Either way, we are relying on the explanations of fellow wikipedians who can read the sources. My Alt Account 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to help as much as i can. My native language is Russian, but i live in Israel and i am very far from being a Russian nationalist. I support Siberian language out of linguistic curiosity (linguistics is my major) and the political cause of Volgota is of little interest to me. As i mentioned earlier in the discussion, this is a conlang developed by a small group, but it is rather more than Esperanto or Slovio - this actually aims at becoming spoken as a revived natural language. Thus i find it linguistically valid, albeit rather haphazard at the time. Think of it as a language developed by a wikimob instead of a commitee. The times they are a-changing. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously, this constructed language is a key component of a political movement, which itself makes both the language and the movement notable. (How many non-notable political movements devise their own language?) —optikos 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Feel free to write about the Postal Ordination process, but more substantively and without the "church" neologism (or cite sources for this specific title's notability). El_C 11:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper church[edit]

This appears to be a neologism and I can find no evidence of the term being used in this sense anywhere but this page. Elembis 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The only paper churches I can find in Google seem to actually be made of paper. --Ogdred 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Online Church - There appear to be a few phrases used to describe such organisations but no particular one in common usage, there are very few such organisations and there is already an article on the Universal Life Church which is the main organisation carrying out these postal\online ordinations and indeed online exorcisms [77] - maybe it would be better if the article was renamed to something such as Remote Ordination or Online and Postal Ordinations or Online Church, Online Church is a term I've come across a number of times before although Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on it although there are a number of churches that in one way or other meet the criteria and which it is used for.--Lord of the Isles 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but did you look at the article? The entire text is:

A paper church is a church that ordains ministers through the mail, usually for a fee. A well known example is the Universal Life Church (which performs the ordinations for free.)

There isn't any content there at all; there doesn't seem much point in renaming a stub. --Ogdred 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gibello[edit]

Originally maked as db-bio by me, NawlinWiki changed it to PROD and the article creator (who based on a Google search is the subject of the article as well) then removed the PROD. So per policy I bring it here. Fails WP:BIO, claims made in new article are simply not verifiable and IMO not true and lead me to believe it is a WP:HOAX -- DrunkenSmurf 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoaxter, methinks - see this. Camillus (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is obviously a hoax (the Forbes citation, anyway...), can't it be speedy? There seem to be some allegation that he is actually a criminal.--Ogdred 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my thoughts when I saw the article originally and did a quick search for the name, but as I noted above an admin thought it should be prodded instead. DrunkenSmurf 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. I can find nothing to corroborate this article. —dustmite 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxes must be destroyed. Danny Lilithborne 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and concur that this looks like a hoax. My Alt Account 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DONT Delete Google searched bring up nothing, a look into DOT Info's public records shows Brian Gibello as the acting CEO. It also brings me to think the net wealth figure could be correct if company profit is anything to go by. There happens to be a artical on Brian in Forbes September, although this is not the same for the website MyPINKthing 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.124.58 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- MyPINKthing looks to be a fake -- the timestamp doesn't match the history log, and there is no such user. —Ogdred 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right - good catch. The comment was added by an anonymous user editing on an IP. Srose (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kusma (討論) 09:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackhawk Golf Club[edit]

Non-notable golf course. No major played here. Prod removed without comment. Delete. BlueValour 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —dustmite 00:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per WP:LOCAL. Kappa 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My Alt Account 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indrian 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 14:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling tours of Australia[edit]

Non-notable wrestling tours throughout the years. PROD removed without explanation. TJ Spyke 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Ogdred 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC) 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't see why Australian fans of pro wrestling shouldn't be able to read about tours of their country. Kappa 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Kappa. Normy132 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what makes these tours notable though? WWE has done thousands of tours over the years. TJ Spyke 03:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have the feeling that between them these tours have received independent coverage from multiple sources as well as having been attended by large audiences. Kappa 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/verify. There have been notable, verifiable wrestling tours of Australia. We need them to be verified, however. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DXRAW 07:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some references are provided to the article, currently it appears to be original research. --Mako 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft and listcruft. The list of tours of Australia is alot of non-notable shows. House shows for WCW and WWE aren't worth listing. RobJ1981 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the WWE Global Warning Tour? Will that stay even if this gets deleted? Normy132 03:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to nominate articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. They aren't automatically deleted based on precedents set by other AFD discussions. Mako 03:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, phrased that wrong. If this gets deleted is there a chance that that article wil be nominated for deletion as well? Normy132 04:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - An editor said the Global Warming Tour was on PPV(which would make it notable), but they haven't added a source for that. TJ Spyke 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Tour was also released on DVD. Tromboneguy0186 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list of (mostly) nn events. Keep the notable tours in seperate articles, and then get rid of this list. Lankiveil 11:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Quest Heroes[edit]

Orphaned and questionable overview of two titles of a supposed series of video games where the author claims the original title has little or no relevance. [78] Combination 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith AfD; The user was previously trying to turn it into a redirect to Slime MoriMori, and blanked the talk page's cvgproj template saying "does not exist" (when clearly, it does exist). And yes, the original Japanese-only title is of very little relevance to the en.wiki when there is an English title to be used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally:

No longer orphaned, linked to in both of the games and in the main Dragon Quest article.
What is questionable about the overviews?
What makes it "supposed"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- X399 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Spin-off of popular series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks like a bad faith nomination; it's a stub, but not a bad one. Additionally, please do not use voting images. Thank you. Captainktainer * Talk 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean At first glance, the page seems unneeded -- that's what main series pages are for. But upon looking at the Dragon Quest page, it's obvious that each spinoff series has its own page. Maybe something needs to be added to reflect that? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Clean-up Umm.. Apparently, some editors need to learn how to Assume Good Faith -- this is the third afd in recent days that has had someone complaining that an article is in "bad faith" ... These are articles with no sources and no obvious assertations of notability. They should be questioned and vetted and cleaned up. On to the articles and the reasons for merge... I've never heard of this game in my life, so the wikipedia article should teach me some thing about it. When I first enter the page, I think it's a disambiguation page. Ok, fine and dandy. There is a lot of talk about the The quality of the writing is not very good, the article doesn't explain terms like "blue slime" (neither does the link to the word) ... the articles for the two games in this series are painfully short. It's really an un-needed disambiguation page. So, I say Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest and Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime into Dragon Quest Heroes in order to provide more succinct and better reading article --Kunzite 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user has on multiple occasions made personal attacks. Additionally, that is not a good idea. The articles are of too high importance to be merged together like they once were. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User comments do not preclude WP:CIVIL. Please further explain the importance of having these two articles as seperate entries? What harm would that do? The two articles now are painfully short. Why, when there is an adequate namespace for the two article, on a very similar subject, must we have two? the merging document suggests..."There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." We should follow it. --Kunzite 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The user made an insult towards me on his user talk page. On the subject of DQH and SMMDQ - they are not "very similar games", they are two completely different entries in a series outside of visuals and gameplay. Different plot, different levels and other similar details. Would you suggest merging the six Star Wars articles together? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not preculde WP:CIVIL. "Different plot" is no reason to split as pointed out at WP:FICTION, fiction based articles should be merged. And, yes, if the six Star Wars series articles were this short, they should be merged. I would be happy to do it. --Kunzite 00:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So he was being civil when he made an insult towards me. Riiight. I'm sure you're not the only sane Wikipedian with that outlook on civility. Before you merge the articles, be sure to remove the stub tag. There's a good reason why it exists. You make it sound like the two articles are notoriously short, when they are both several paragraphs long. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep no valid reason given for deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Series is spinoff on popular series so that follows WP:Software and I really don't see any other reason for deletion.guitarhero777777 02:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain exactly how this meets WP:SOFTWARE, I see no references to multiple, non-trivial published bits of information mentioned anywhere in the article. Nor do I see anything that satisfies the other criteria. Is WP:SOFTWARE the best guideline for video games? It looks to be more geared toward applications and the like. --Kunzite 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In a shocking vote against the grain of this discussion, I'm voting to delete. Right, other than the 2 synopses for Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest and Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime, both of which are adequately covered in their respective articles, we have 2 lines. How is this useful? Why not just make it a redirect to the first game, introduce the Dragon Quest Heroe's series there, and mention the second game either in the lead paragraph or as a dab link at the top? Right now, it just seems to be having an article for the sake of having an article. - Hahnch e n 03:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Bad faith nomination. Havok (T/C/c) 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs a clean up. +Fin- 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a glorified disambig. Garrett^Talk 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motifband[edit]

Non-notable band. One demo recording and one public concert. WP:NOT a crystal ball. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Danteferno 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — non notable (couldn't this even be speedy deleted?) -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At least they didn't make a page for every band member. My Alt Account 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prolog 21:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The delete comments make some points, but IMO anyone who wants Alphaman deleted should nominate it and we can have a fresh debate, starting with a more complete article. Mango juice^talk 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Man (computer game)[edit]

There are several MS-DOS games named Alpha Man that are arguably notable, and this one is none of them. My best guess is that it's yet another Young Zaphod/Doctor Octagon/Herb Gilliland vanity article. If you polled every roguelike expert on Wikipedia -- save YZ -- I predict that none of them would ever have heard of this. Nandesuka 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no hope of expansion if it's none of the known MS-DOS games. Danny Lilithborne 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your sources for it being 'not known' Herbert Elwood Gilliland III 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is my favorite MS-DOS game. Herbert Elwood Gilliland III 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contest User:Nandesuka's use of the word WP:Vanity here, as it is not a game I wrote just played. Also, I don't think Nandesuka is being fair or at all considerate. Herbert Elwood Gilliland III 19:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Vossanova. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE Ehheh 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alphaman, which appears to be the same game and has been up for over a year now. --Vossanova ^o< 15:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Zogbé[edit]

Article was prod'ed by I do not exist. The creator of the article, Mwhs has made some rather questionable edits to several articles, but seems to be contributing in what he or she assumes to be good faith. I'm not sure if he or she is still following Wikipedia. In order to be fair to Mwhs, I have moved the nomination for deletion here to get a wider range of input. In addition to I do not exist's reasoning below, "Vivian Hunter-Hindrew" (her original name) -wikipedia gets 13 unique Google hits; -wikipedia -mamiwata.com (her personal website) gets 9 unique hits. Neither name gets any Google Books hits, though "mamiwata.com" gets 6. Below is I do not exist's original prod reasoning. (No vote.) BrianSmithson 22:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn, 82 google hits, 45 for "Mama Zogbé" -Wikipedia, 10 for "Mama Zogbé" -Wikipedia -mamiwata.com (which seems to be her own website)

Delete This is, we have every reason to believe, is either an autobiography or a vanity article by a close associate of the subject. The only relevant criteria of WP:BIO appears to be the first: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." The contribution being the posisble introduction of the Mami Wata new religious movement to the U.S. If it is widely recognized, where are the external sources? At any rate, there are no references to independent reliable sources in the article to provide supporting evidence for any assertion of notability. GRBerry 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but open to changing if information can be verified from reliable sources. AfD is always a little hard for topics outside first world English-speaking countries. She appears to have been interviewed once, with the material used in a couple of other places [79] [80]. Amazon has her as the author of an out-of-print book, probably self-published, and certainly with no mainstream reviews that Google can turn up. On balance, I'd say the article fails to meet WP:BIO, but I'd welcome proof that I'm wrong. William Pietri 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dude, she's an American. Last time I checked, America was still a first world English-speaking country. ;-) - ∅ (∅), 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. Thanks for catching it. That'll teach me to read more carefully. Given that, I'm a firm delete.William Pietri 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my prod. - ∅ (∅), 13:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried my hand at a little cleanup and npoving, added the {{unsourced}} tag, not that I think any sources are going to show up. - ∅ (∅), 03:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of religion-related deletions. -- GRBerry 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say Keep, especially given "Mama Zogbé’s organization ... is responsible for petitioning and winning approval by the Library of Congress to change the classification of books written on African Religions from their previous labeling of "cults", to “African Religions”." That's a pretty significant contribution (not that it should have been necessary, but that's another issue).

Septegram 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coranto[edit]

keep but change to NPOV Gioto 12:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
umm...why is this up for deletion? I agree that it definitely needs editing, but the NPOV notice should be sufficient to indivicate this. 132.162.219.222
Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:CORP. No reliable, third-party sources per WP:V. Is not WP:NPOV and reads like WP:SPAM. --Satori Son 18:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD nomination wasn't completed and when fixed was listed on the 4th September log. Relisting on 10th September log to allow for concensus. Yomangani ^talk 22:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Satori Son. (by the way, "Keep" isn't the most convincing nomination for deletion I've ever seen) Yomangani ^talk 23:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't even assert notability. ~ trialsanderrors 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gioto --Lkseitz 16:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nomination NawlinWiki 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian (people)[edit]

This article is nothing more than political propoganda. It's supposed to be an article about Asian people, but excludes anyone from West Asia because the Arab world has become controversial so people don't want them tarnishing the Asian name. You could make the argument that Asian has replaced the racial groups formally described as Mongoloid or Oriental, but then why are Indians included? It's obvious that Indians are included because the people who created this article do not want to associate themselves with their racial heritage and so choose a geographic category that trancends race, yet they arbitrary exclude the controversial West Asian (i.e. Arabs) for political reasons. They are trying to have it both ways. They include non-Oriental Indians in the Asian category because they want to associate tyhemselves with their continent of origin and not their race of origin, but they conveniently exclude West Asians because the Arab world is controversial, even though most white people can't tell the difference between an Indian and an Arab, yet can most certainly differentiate an Indian from an Oriental. This article is pure crap. Politically motivated biased POV crap. Asianpeople 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a use, why the heck is yor name the same as the article you despise? Scienceman123 talk 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Asian is neither Oriental nor Mongoloid and it includes a different set of people. The Asian (people) article had many citations to verify its claims. These citations said West Asians (Arabs) are not considered Asian, due to American English parlance and cultural reasons. Racial definitions formed by different criteria are not concordant. Anthrometric, cultural and genetic races are not concordant. It is deceptive that the user name you created for yourself a little while ago is "Asian people" (implying you identify as an Asian person).--Dark Tichondrias 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You spend all day looking for citation that give you an exuse to exclude West Asians yet ironically include Indians. The bias is so obvious and the reason for excluding Arabs is transparent. Most people do not group Indians/Packistanis in the same category as Orientals and you know it. You are spreading propoganda. Asianpeople 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (probably speedy) extremely verifiable term in common usage. Encyclopaedic subject. Keep per take yer content dispute to the talk page and get yer sources out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Attempt to hijack article. --Hús ö nd 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Anderson[edit]

Based on precedent that WWE Diva Search contestants are usually not considered notable. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Renosecond 23:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable beyond her WWE affiliation. Might I add that it's been less than a month since the first AfD discussion on this article, which I feel is too soon to be renominating. VegaDark 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having bit parts in a few movies and being in a few magazines doesn't make her much more notable (if that) than anyone else, and with the 6 articles/examples I have shown, some of them had more creditentials than she did and were still deleted. It is not too soon to renominate, based on the examples and precedents set by those listed above. And some of the other WWE Diva Search contestants are also protected and speedied. Renosecond 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to have been in more than enough to be notable. Not every diva search contestant must be gone, just because the others aren't notable. RobJ1981 21:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just a WWE Diva contestant. Had several bit parts in some TV programs. I even saw her on Filter if that counts for something. --Howard the Duck 13:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mango juice^talk 16:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Levin[edit]

Delete. Non-notable as per WP:BIO: "...merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." Article creator deleted prod and unreferenced templates without comment or page alterations, and regarding WP:BIO, it is difficult to find much verifiable information or interest in this person. (528 GHits, including Wikipedia) I believe this may be WP:VAIN. —Trevyn 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable as cofounder of magazine, if not as midlevel White House staffer. NawlinWiki 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, the claim that he is a cofounder is unverifiable as per the magazine's own website. —Trevyn 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Google hits at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Yuval+Levin%22+site%3Agov which confirm his White House activities. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more evidence of notability from reliable sources turns up. He's the author of an unremarked book on a vanity press (with a number of dubious-looking reviews on Amazon), a senior editor at a minor magazine [81], and a minor White House staffer. None of that to me pushes over him the WP:BIO line. William Pietri 01:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Pietri and in rebuttal to TruthbringerToronto: having a staff job somewhere in the bowels of the West Wing means nothing per se. If someday he parlays that into a gig on the Republican-rubber-chicken/conservative-thinktank/Sabbath-Gasbag-Show* circuit, then maybe. Now? No. --Calton | Talk 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*TM Calvin Trillin.

Keep This doesn't even rise to the level of silly. He is the former head of the entire staff of the most controversial Federal Bioethics Commission in history. I myself do not think they should be that controversial, but after all the attacks on him and Kass-assuming they were even all too charitable to him-to say that he doesn't merit this entry is indefensible.-Bradford W. Short, Sept. 15, 2006

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigman ceiling[edit]

Company that does not appear notable. NawlinWiki 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not assert any particular notability, and I can't find any indication of them meeting WP:CORP. William Pietri 00:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Author removed multiple prods and tags, without comment. I've tried several times to get him/her to do a hangon and state a case, but nothing. --Pagana 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: they're repeatedly deleting the AfD tag now. Polite warnings ignored. --Pagana 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Jedi Saga[edit]

Contested prod, no evidence of notability provided. --Peta 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete self-produced fan film. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and blatant advertising (most of the links are external). -- Merope ^{Talk to me}/_{Review me} 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --- Deville (Talk) 04:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persian (pastry)[edit]

Contested prod; article is about a pastry produced by one non-notable baker, delete --Peta 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some spam was removed as a result of the prod but this fails WP:OR, WP:V (quite a few articles on persian pastries but nothing this one as far as I can see), and ~~WP:PASTRY~~ WP:CORP. Yomangani ^talk 00:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yomangani. I would also like to express my disappointment that Wikipedia does not have a guideline for pastry notability. —dustmite 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Appears to be a real thing local to Thunder Bay, but not quite so real that we can verify with reliable sources. Oh, and dustmite, the proposed pastry guideline is actually at WP:PUFF. It's in the early stages, though, so I don't think we can use it here. William Pietri 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep based on Jdclevenger's edits. Bravo! William Pietri 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - "To this day, the yummy cinnamon-bun-like creation remains exclusive to the city" Self-admitted NN pastry. If it ever becomes popular outside of the city and verifiable, can be recreated. VegaDark 01:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per source verifying some of the claims. Still needs a rewrite deleting some of the original research but it does appear as if this pastry is one of the city's claims to fame. Doesn't look very notable outside the city, but it looks as if it does go beyond one baker. Barely passes keep criteria with reservations towards its notability. VegaDark 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have de-yumified the article and included a number of citations. It certainly could use more re-writting but it is less sugary. It is very clear from Google that the Persian is available at a large number of establishments in town and has been around long enough to have a number of competing claims to its creation. So it is not a simple promo/vanity by a single baker. Also, interestingly, there is a claim that it is named for Blackjack Pershing (I have included this on the page). Regarding the relability of sources, it appears in a goodly number of different "what to do" pages about Thunder Bay. This is about what one should expect in a not-so-media-dense place. I'm sure the next time that Frank Bruni or Johnny Apple from the New York Times is in TB they will do a write-up. Til then, I think the voice of the locals is sufficient. Finally, I think is exactly the sort of regionalism that is important to preserve and document. Jdclevenger 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your work is definitely persuading me. I'd love to see more, though. William Pietri 04:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I appreciate your realization and support. I'm a former resident of the city (born and raised) and I can tell you that the pending inclusion of the Persian to the Wikipedia database has many locals raving. Not only is it the city's claim to fame, with the dying pulp & paper industry in the region it seems that the emerging industry is tourism - and the Persian is just one more thing that the local economy thrives on.--Quaresimaj 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have rewritten the entry again. I think it now has an encylopedia tone. I need to add one or two citations within the text, although the external links are basically what will be used. I am doing a little outside research and would like to add a little more "meat" to the article if I can find out any more info.Jdclevenger 13:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do have articles about all kinds of obscure regional specialties, so why not this one. Especially after Jdclevenger's good edits. Luigizanasi 14:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nice cleanup job and these are at least as notable as any other regional cuisine specialty. Bearcat 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work done by Jdclevenger. Agne 17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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