Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

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 speedy keep. Misza13 16:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way[edit]

Article lacks a variety of qualities, including NPOV violations, lack of reliable sources, and unverifability. ZERO GOOGLE HITS --Outoftunestringbass 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Not even funny. --Kinu t/c 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep is this a joke? --Alex (talk here) 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (edit conflict), isn't this guy a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user? They've copied Jaranda (talk)'s talk page. J Ditalk 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment YOU BOTH SUCK --Outoftunestringbass 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Is this AFD a joke? Especially the zero google hits part (I get over 5 million). It's our galaxy for heaven's sake!!! It's a GA, has 13 references which are easily verfied, and does not meet any deletion criteria. I'm tempted to think Outoftunestringbass is out of his mind. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 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 merge to Jersey Youth Reform Team. Petros471 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Small[edit]

This biographical article appears to fail WP:BIO because while there is one newsworthy event to be covered, there is not a second. There are 84 unique search engine hits for the subject's name and "Jersey". In addition, this is a potential vanity article based on username of the creator and was deprodded without alteration. Erechtheus 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Gay rights in Britain. A notable event but a non-notable person. --Wafulz 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Jersey Youth Reform Team, the organization which he is executive director of.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would withdraw this nom subject to a merge and redirect, but I really can't at this point for two reasons: we need to determine where to redirect the title after merges and I wonder if there won't be even other places where information from this article should go. Erechtheus 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is unbearably vague about what this fellow actually did. The European Court agreed to hear his case (about what? the article says nothing) but the case was settled before the Court could hear it. Then we learn he continued to work for "reform" and "the rights of young people" (what does that even mean?) in his home area. What establishes notability from that sequence of facts? All unsourced. Allon Fambrizzi 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment. The search engine results above will convince you that there is verifiable subject matter that is in need of documentation in at least the two articles mentioned above. I agree that this article is terribly written as is, though. This is where the old AfD dilemma comes in about whether this should be about what has been written in the article or what is readily available. I personally think neither of those options is always the right answer. In this case, I do think looking at what is available by Internet search makes sense. Erechtheus 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since with 49 unique Googles I'd say that his independent notability is questionable at best. Guy 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Keep: After looking at the article and the google hits the nominator provided I added some information, sources, ect. I'll see what else I can do when I get back this afternoon. This seems to be a notable person and event, there are verifiable sources, and while his main work so far seems to have to do with getting the law changed, he has founded an organization to promote youth rights and will probably eventually be mentioned for future works. I see no reason to delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, not notable enough on its own, but shouldn't be deleted.Ramsquire 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the Pokémon Test. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, note that the Pokemon test is only an essay, and not a guideline or a policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Jersey. This young man did something most people wouldn't consider. The ages of consent were unequal - young people were too scared to voice the issue themselves, so he did.

He deserves this page as much as anyone else does. Luke, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.29 (talk • contribs)

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

The result was move to H. L. Nage Gowda, nomination withdrawn. -- NORTH talk 08:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. N. Nage Gowda[edit]

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Speedy Keep and move as said below. Tarret 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO; a non-published poet that hasn't been subject to any notable media sources and that hasn't won any major awards. Only 48 Google results [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems to have been a spelling mistake, as pointed out by Mereda and Arvind.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major indian poets should atleast be awarded with a Jnanpith Award or a state award. Failing that, he must have a lot of published a lot of works. Since, he doesn't confirm with these 2 things, delete him. --Ageo020 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good one Antorjal. If he has won a state award, keep him. --Ageo020 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Jnanpith is awarded to one person every year. India has one billion plus people and 20+ recognized official languages. I think the Jnanpith criteria is as harsher than asking every British writer to win a Booker. The Sahitya Akademi award is a state-level award. I confess I know nothing about this author or the literature in the language he's written in, but I do know about this award and the recipients in the Indian languages I speak, who are well published and notable to millions. A problem with notability is that transliterations schemes don't always allow for the best hits and India has an abysmal record of getting stuff from local languages up on the net (hence the difficulty in searching on Google). I would like to request native speakers to establish notability (if it is notable) citing references. --Antorjal 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Victoriagirl 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.UberCryxic 03:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and sounds like a speech praising the person rather than an encyclopedic article. --physicq210 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Showing evidence of improvement, but still on the brink. --physicq210 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --dtony 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even countering systemic bias can get this past WP:BIO, I'm afraid. Created by a family member, I'll go and leave them a note if nobody has yet done so. Guy 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite. A clear win for the deletion sorting system and the quality of the Indian content specialists. Guy 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Janapada Loka The museum [2] founded by H. N. Nage Gowda is of encyclopedic quality. I don't know about his poetry but he's also listed as a poet under Vokkaliga, added in April by an anonymous editor. Mereda 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC) It looks like the subject is really H. L. Nage Gowra who's definitely notable [3], [4] (state award) and [5]. Mereda 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep, and move to H.L. Nage Gowda. The article name is an obvious typo - the person who started the museum is H.L. Nage Gowda, not H.N. Nage Gowda. H.L. Nage Gowda has won the Sahitya Akademi Award (see this obituary, which is a pretty prestigious literary award for writing in Indian languages. That clearly takes him past the threshhold established by WP:BIO. -- Arvind 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total for H. L. Nagegowda and H. L. Nage Gowda comes to just under a couple of hundred hits on Google. The largest obit is by HI. SHI. RAMCHANDRE GOWDA - I am not familiar enough with Indian naming ocnventions to know if that would likely be a relative or an impartial biography. Any clues here? Is there an article on the native-language Wikipedia? Guy 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Karnataka, "Gowda" is about as common as "Smith" in the UK, so I'd say the chance that he's a relative is pretty small. Incidentally, the newspaper in which that obituary was printed - The Hindu - has the same position in southern India that the New York Times does in the US, so an obit they print is unlikely to be mere hagiography. -- Arvind 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone's still feeling doubtful about his notability, he earned the honour of a State funeral [6] Mereda 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article, which hopefully establishes notability. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to move it to the correct title until this discussion is done, so I've left it under "H.N. Nage Gowda". -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the N to an L -- though I understand there's a Hangul character component that can be equally validly transscribed as /n/ or /r/, so it may not be a typo (yes, I know Korean is an entirely separate language). In any case, if he's won an award that itself has an article, that's notable enough for me.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an award from an institution which has an article, which is not quite the same thing. Guy 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sahitya Akademi Award has its own article too, though a pretty bad one. -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would have been an open and shut case of delete for me because of the issues noted but the "Sahitya Akademi" which is India's rough equivalent of the Pulitzer sealed this one for me. However, I do stress that the burden of proof lies with the article creator/editors.--Antorjal 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the fact that an author was nominated to hold office in a state legislature means he's respected in his own state and language. --Antorjal 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets encyclopedic criteria per Mereda and Arvind. Agent 86 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merits inclusion, though should be rewritten and shortened in a more neutral tone. Trnj2000 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly notable. Trnj2000 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the updated article. Arbusto 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good article for rewriting and a notable person.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Arvind. --Ragib 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks Arvind Mujinga 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Please note that Indian literature and Media have very poor web presence and just because you don't find something in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable Doctor BrunoTalk 14:26, 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. Sango123 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HGB College, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable and unverifyable. Tarret 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reads like spam. --Aaron 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it's an accredited college then it's probably notable, but I can find no evidence of this place on Google, so delete per WP:Verifiability. -Elmer Clark 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mad delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; fails WP:N and WP:V criterias--TBCTaLk?!? 04:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Thε Halo Θ 10:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable spam. Guy 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confirmed to be not accredited. This is the list of the only accredited colleges and universities in the Philippines [7]. zephyr2k 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:58, 17 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. Sango123 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webdip[edit]

Not notable software. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Yes, two articles have been written on the subject but that work is not an independent source since SourceForge tells us that the two project admins for this software are neunm and schultem, most probably the authors of these articles. Google finds a lot of hits for webdip but in fact very few for "webdip + database" [8] or for "webdip + decision" [9]. No significant third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Cities Mall[edit]

Non-notable mall, fails WP:CORP TJ Spyke 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete, subject to change if any user adds information that leads to the article passing WP:CORP. It was my hope to resolve that matter prior to an AfD, but the nominator chose to go ahead with this discussion, which is his right.Erechtheus 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the mall is notable, then the person who removed the prod should be able to find sources proving so within 5 days. TJ Spyke 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't disagree. I have simply had enough AfDs go bad due to my own decisions to rush in for deletion that I'm taking a more cautious approach. You don't have to feel constrained by my choice. Erechtheus 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Explain how WP:CORP, the guidelines for including companies and brand names, applies to shopping malls? Malls should be considered under WP:LOCAL to begin with. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There are a slew of other articles about what I'm assuming many would consider to be non-notable malls. Why is this one so much less notable than so many others who are allowed to have their own articles? This mall is notable because it was one of the first enclosed malls in this part of the country.--MatthewUND(talk) 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's is a "part of the country?"–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. don't delete things from AFD pages[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that enclosed malls which are the first in their area are notable enough if only from a historic standpoint. Also agree with MatthewUND(talk) that there are other articles on malls, both enclosed and not, that haven't been targeted. (Not that I'm proposing we seek out mall articles for deletion.) MichaelCaricofe 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truthfully, I'm afraid to argue this one too much (this is my first foray into the AfD arena). MichaelCaricofe 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Erechtheus. Admittedly, this doesn't seem to be an ad, which is usually how I justify to myself saying "delete" on merely NN articles, but I want to be consistent. Process is important.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be a real shame when a decent article gets deleted all in the name of "process". --MatthewUND(talk) 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fight between notability and Wikipedia is not paper. "This is a mall" (the article says more than that, but not much more) pushes me onto the NN side. The article might be editable to put me on the not-paper side, as Erechtheus said. As it is, however, it's primarily a directory. By "process is important" I meant only that there is a consensus (an evolving one, to be sure) on what is appropriate for Wikipedia, and I'm not going to buck it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything notable here. Would anyone ever want to read this article? --Ogdred 03:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • People voting to keep are saying it's notable, do you have any sources to show that it's notable? TJ Spyke 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N; hasn't been mentioned in any major media sources; doesn't seem to have a notable historical background.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's rare that the local mall is notable. I'm sure we can all think of more encyclopedic subjects than whether or not there's a hardware store in a mall in Grand Forks. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too much like a directory listing. Is the next step to create pages for every local Wal-Mart?Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
  • Delete unless some references from reliable sources are provided. -- Mako 05:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... aren't large enclosed malls inherently notable? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have never seen a proposed notability guideline that makes such a case. What makes you think that? Erechtheus 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Give me a break. This is no different from any of hundreds of different mall articles already on WP. It certainly isn't any different from the other mall in Grand Forks. I must also strongly protest the fact that this was nominated without contacting anyone in WikiProject North Dakota. --AlexWCovington (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if someone wants to go through the bother of nominating the entries there, I'd not object.--Isotope23 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unreferenced for starters, but even if referenced there is nothing to set this mall apart from the hundreds of other malls across America.--Isotope23 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least as notable as hundreds of pokemons (which dont even exist in the real world!) Jcuk 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a good point, Jcuk. Why is it just fine to have countless articles about ficticious cartoon characters, but it is so bad to have an article about a physical place with a real history and - at the very least - regional notability. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually I'd be more than happy to see all the pokecruft gone from Wikipedia, but realistically speaking, that will never happen. Still, just because Wikipedia has become a stomping ground for hundreds of articles about the minutiae of a childrens cartoon (curiously written by people who apparently are not in the target 10 year old market) doesn't justify adding any other sort of article. A better arguement for this existing in Wikipedia is to demonstrate the notability of this mall... as other are attempting to do.--Isotope23 03:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Sorry folks but the deletes have not done any leg work here, so shame on you, especially the Nom which I virtual shake a finger at for lack of their own research. The mall was built in 1964 and called 'South Forks Plaza'. It was Grand Forks', and North Dakota's first enclosed mall. How is that for notability? --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - according to WP:V the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have added (or wish to retain) unreferenced information, not those who wish the unreferenced information to be removed. Mako 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I was aware this was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota... and I'm still was not convinced of notability; any more than I'd find an article about the first Ikea to open in Michigan (which was a huge media event in the Detroit area) notable. As there is no accepted guideline for physical locations, all I can go on is personal judgement and to me "first enclosed mall in a state" doesn't cut it.--Isotope23 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - This mall is as notable as any and Bschott above put it better than I can. Being the first mall in North Dakota certainly deserves recognition. Weatherman90 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And so far the keeps have not provided any SOURCES that show why it's notable. This mall is not notable just because you say it is. Also, you are free to nominate other similiar non-notable malls as well since I cannot know about every article on every mall here. TJ Spyke 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since you are pushing the issue for what ever reason you feel so strongly about it, I'll head to the library and find the books to reference. You may not know about ever article but you certainly have the ability to research before voting. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have, other articles on malls have been deleted for being non-notable. I can't be expected to know about every article on a mall though. TJ Spyke 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's just a mall in a smaller town, and it's a tourist attraction in North Dakota, esp. the eastern half of the state. Grand Cities Mall (formerly South Forks Plaza) was there more than 10 years before the more known Columbia Mall.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be lesser known to some people who aren't from around here, but it's well known in North Dakota and western Minnesota.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After more research at the library, I found technically the "Park Plaza Shopping Center" in Jamestown, opened a week before "South Forks Plaza" was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota, though the South Forks was finished first. (Courtesy of the "The Source: 2005 Edition", published by the Jamestown Sun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Malls are businesses, in the business of renting space to retail stores. That means WP:CORP is the applicable standard. The article, and this AFD to date, contains no evidence (and not even an assertion) that the mall meets the standards set by WP:CORP. And yes, I assume that there are swarms of other mall articles out there that deserve deletion. When/if I encounter one in my editing, I'll nominate it, but I don't go out of my way to look for articles to nominate. GRBerry 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No, that doesn't make WP:CORP apply, because the article is not about that business of renting out the space in the mall. Rather it is about the presence and impance on a community; it is more along the lines of the proposed Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Gene Nygaard 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who are voting keep, you need to provide a source that shows why this articles to be kept. No sources have been provided saying why this mall is notable at all. Also, Wikipedia:Places of local interest is only a proposed policy(meaning it isn't official policy yet). TJ Spyke 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You poisoned the well by bringing up WP:CORP. Museums and theaters and football stadiums are businesses too, but it isn't the business implications that are most important to the articles. Neither they nor malls should be considered on the basis of notabilities as businesses, per se. Gene Nygaard 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • TJ, I don't know how much clearer it could be. Head down to the local library, see if they will order "The Source: 2005 Edition" published by the Jamestown Sun. Books are allowed as sources per Wikipedia policy if I recall, unless that changed overnight and someone forgot to forward the memo to me. --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does being the second enclosed mall in South Dakota make it notable though? TJ Spyke 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no idea Grand Forks was in South Dakota. Only lived in North Dakota most of my life and thought GF was in North Dakota. Guess I learn something new each day from people who can't even take the time to get the facts straight. It was the first built/completed but second opened (by six days) in North Dakota. It also has been the longest open as "The Park" was closed for a few years then reopened back in the 1980's, and although it had damage because of The Flood of 1997 it was re-modeled and one of the very first businesses reopened after the flood. I'm quite sure a search of the local paper, the GFH would bring up these facts, though they don't have a searchable Archive online. Guess I'll head down to the local library and do a bit of research. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has references, fine, but malls are not inherently notable and the article makes no claim to notability. Doesn't pass the WP:CORP test. Fernando Rizo 18:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is an important historical building in Grand Forks, North Dakota! --RicKAbbo 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "the first enclosed shopping mall built in North Dakota" seems notable enough to me, though perhaps it's marginal. Jonathunder 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edgecution 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom is NOT a valid reason. This is not a vote, rather discussion based on research whether or not the article should stay. Delete per nom means nothing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I agree with the reaon it's nominated. It's a non-notable mall(although very few malls are notable) and I haven't seen a valid reason for why the article should not be deleted. Edgecution 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think that many of the "delete" votes come from people who live in places where shopping malls grow like weeds, and thus cannot conceive of why any individual mall would ever be notable. I sympathize, but also recognize that the notability of something depends not just on what it is, but also on where it is. In the case of North Dakota, a large enclosed mall is undoubtably notable, even if it wouldn't be in, say, Phoenix or Los Angeles. Skybum 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't have said it better myself. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not ready to change my vote yet (and I think this will be no consensus anyway) but this is finally the first really interesting reason to keep and I'd like to see it expanded upon. Are malls really so rare in the State of North Dakota that the first mall is notable? I have to admit, where I live, in 1 hour's time I could get to 10-12 malls easily. A mall simply is no big deal.--Isotope23 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isotope, I guess I should explain. Enclosed malls are not abundent up in North Dakota cities as a whole. Fargo, the biggest city in North Dakota has one...West Acers. Grand Forks, has two (columbia and grand cities), Jamestown has one, and there is one in Bismark, the state capital. Something else to point out is that theses cities are hours apart, making enclosed shopping malls nearly a novelty. Grand Forks and Fargo are 45-50 minutes apart via the interstate highway 29 (which is 75MPH and little traffic). Jamestown - Fargo is +2 Hours and Bismark-Fargo is 4-5 Hours, hence the reason the editors from North Dakota are so against this delete. It's the longest running enclosed mall in a state with so few of them around. I can understand if LA, NYC, Miami, DFW, or KC has 10-40 (or more) enclosed malls within the city (or suburbs) making someone from that area believe enclosed malls are not notable, but from an area where the next closest enclosed mall is a +2 hour drive...the mall would be notable. This mall is notable for the community because it is a 'big deal' for the city. It was the Focal point of the city's shopping economy for decades, and still has drawing power. In a state with a total population of 642,200 people I hope you can see the context, when a city such as LA has a total population of 4,097,340! , --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think I can approve of where this sort of reasoning takes us. I have family members who live in rural West Virginia. Up until they got a Wal-Mart last year, they had no shopping of that nature within around an hour of where they lived. Does that mean that the Welch Wal-Mart should have an article because it's a "big deal" to the few people who live in the northern part of McDowell and the southern part of Wyoming counties? I don't think so. Erechtheus 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think you can compare a Wal-Mart store to an entire mall. A Wal-Mart, no matter what kind of an impact it has on a local community, is just one store. On the other hand, a mall is more than just a store. In ways, it is almost like an entire neighborhood. The Grand Cities Mall had a major impact on the city of Grand Forks. When it opened, it started the decline of once-bustling downtown Grand Forks. In ways, the mall was a "new downtown". People had never seen anything like it. It seemed huge back then and its opening forever changed the business climate and the landscape of the community. In North Dakota, the opening of a mall is not a regular news item. The opening of this mall was especially noteworthy since it was basically the first mall that anyone had ever seen in this area. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ogdred. Markovich292 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MatthewUND. Strip malls would generally not be notable, but major shopping malls should be; perhaps we need better CORP guidelines or a seperate WP:MALL guideline to handle this. Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Keane[edit]

"Every song on album by Keane. Listcruft." Ogdred 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The information belongs in articles on the singles/albums themselves, not altogether here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unusually for me, I think this article appears justified as a sensible way to organize the information. My Alt Account 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a valuable source for information related to Keane's songs. Also, we currently already have a lot of song lists [10].--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adequately covered by other articles. Artw 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what's the copyright status of those midi samples? Guy 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this should be covered in articles on the releases these songs appeared on (and indeed I'd argue that should be the case with all the articles it the list TBC referenced...) This is just another way to slice and dice data that already appears (or should appear) elsewhere.--Isotope23 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Keane. --Alex (talk here) 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure I like the format in which the information is presented but I don't think it's an invalid article as such. Perhaps the information on the "rare" material could be added here to give the article greater value and dispose of an unneccesary additonal article? Ac@osr 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above Jcuk 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should be in articles on band and albums, not one of its own Ergative rlt 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Keane page. --Ineffable3000 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft and unnecessary duplication of information found (or should be found) in other articles. -- NORTH talk 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per what everyone else already said. - 85.210.146.49 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ac@osr... but those midi samples are very unlikely to be fair use and should be removed ASAP. The JPStalk to me 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Keane. This will be of interest to fans, and has some encyclopaedic value, but doesn't merit its own article. Bridgeplayer 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is not covered by other articles, we do have a lot of this lists and I did create those MIDI samples. Therefore, I'm uploading a better version of Snowed Under right now. I added the information of the "rare material"--Fluence 23:18, 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. Sango123 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rare songs by Keane[edit]

Another list of songs by Keane. Ogdred 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there's no workable definition of "rare", it seems to me. Even if there is, this is listcruft. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pure listcruft, can't see a need for this to have its own article. My Alt Account 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. Artw 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous fancruft.UberCryxic 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. Not even sure what a "rare" song is. eaolson 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. No need to list his every "accomplishment." --physicq210 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Keanecruft. Thε Halo Θ 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV seleciotn criteria, arbitrary. There is no encyclopaedic topic of "rare songs by Keane". Guy 11:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV selection criteria, arbitrary list (there is no encyclopaedic topic of "rare songs by Keane"). Guy 11:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and arbitrary criteria list.--Isotope23 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's with all the Keane pages? Rare could mean anything, as someone pointed out --Alex (talk here) 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but information on verifiable (ie dates of performance or quotations from the band - some of the songs have this I note) unreleased material can be encyclopedic. This article isn't the right way to deal with it however. Ac@osr 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft. Ergative rlt 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fan/listcruft. -- NORTH talk 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it just seems like a list for the sake of having a list. Richyard 17:12, 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. Sango123 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keane's controversies[edit]

Random facts about Keane. Listcruft, and a possible copyvio -- the infor is taken from an FAQ site, according to the article. Ogdred 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for TBC. I personally asked for permission to Chris Flynn for using the information from his website. He did want credits for. And a copyright tag is located at the bottom of the article.--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you find the way to merge it into Keane and it's not deleted, I won't fight keeping this article. And believe me. I cannot lose--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article. --physicq210 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but judiciously. Someone should vet this stuff for encyclopedic value. Fernando Rizo 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the ONLY thing that is relevant is the info about Chaplin's drink/drug problems, and that can be merged into the main article. The rest is irrelevant claptrap nonsense, and Fluence, we've already had this debate several times over at the main article. Also believe it's eligible for content forking. 'Fancruft'... I LOVE that term. :-D Flyingnelly 11:08, 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. Sango123 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zesix[edit]

Unnotable network. I was at first fooled by Google's 44 000 hits but on closer inspection it's 49 unique non-wikipedia hits! [11] No sign of third party coverage. Unquestionnably fails WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that that "49 unique non-wikipedia hits" is incorrect. You are grossly misreading Google results. Do a search for the word cat. By your logic there are fewer than 900 "unique hits" for that word. Common sense tells you that is nonsense. Quatloo 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the number is this small it is less likely to be misleading in that way. My benchmark is that if you get more than about 200 unique, and thousands total, the unique count is probably worthless. I could, of course, be way off there. Guy 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There have been frequent reports in the past that the unique hits are only filtered from the first 1,000, so when the total's much higher, they're not valid. They may be of value to provide a ratio, as in this case, 95% of hits are dups of the first 5%. (Per below, by refining the search, the relevant total came much lower. It appeared from experimenting that 7,000+ were foreign uses of zesix as a word, and 36,000+ were from their own domains, leaving not much.) Fan-1967 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Erechtheus 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per very well explained nom. My Alt Account 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a problem with the search above, because google only filters unique hits from the first 1,000, so when the total's above that, the unique hits are questionable. However, when running the seach again, filtering for only English results (seems it's a foreign word), and excluding results from their own site, clantemplates.com, the result is 604 total, 48 unique. That fails WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ogdred 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanispamcruftisement written by the company's director of operations, Z6 Nakor (talk · contribs), who has no other contributions to the project. Guy 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice job of picking that up. You'd think that maybe people would use a slightly more subtle user name when spamming. Pascal.Tesson 13:01, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute[edit]

Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[12] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Over 1100 google hits excluding wikipedia/mirrors. Ironically, the article you link to provides strong support for claims of notability, as it places the founding of the school within the historical context of struggles within the Baptist leadership of Texas. The information that the school is not accredited would be extremely useful to people considering enrolling. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I get 1,260 general hits with the WP mirrors, and those boil down to only 216 distinct Ghits. The article makes no attempt to show notability, and without sources appears to be original research. The article makes no statements about any struggles for Baptist leadership, nor historical context. I do note the "Associated Baptist Press" claims in their ad rates they have 80,000 paid subscribers with an estimated readership of 200,000. Fine, but WP:CORP (the closest guidelines I can find) requires multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability, and I'm only finding church newsletters and blogs for the rest of it. In any case, per the ad sheet the ABP is a church organ (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) and not a third-party. Tychocat 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand this article into something useful and correct. As it stands, it stinks and it's a link farm for degree mill links. - JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: New user/possible role account for an unaccredited religious "school". Arbusto 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. But Arbusto, what does that comment mean??? Ogdred 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The institute is not yet notable enough to have its own article. A news article by a major news organization might have been convincing enough to give this article a chance, but the not-so-well-known Biblical Recorder doesn't do it for me. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, not interesting. Half the article is an ad and the other half is about its lack of accreditation. I swear I've seen this on AfD before (or has there been a rash of unaccredited theology schools up lately?) Opabinia regalis 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! You saw it in yesterday's AfD. I think rbusto really wants rid of it... --Ogdred 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've listed a few unaccredited institutions in the last few days. Including the current two at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. Arbusto 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of neutral independent sources. There are notable unaccredited schools, this does not appear to beone of them. Guy 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand The article appeared to be fine until, if you'll note the history, a few ofthe voting editors here came in and deleted most of it. Shazbot85Talk 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Only 216 unique Google hits. Nothing at Google News. The question here is not the quality or quantity of the article but the notability of the subject.  :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More like an unaccredited religious academy operating out of a suite. Firstly, website lacks a .edu, signaling a non-government authorized educational entity. Secondly, I question this Theological Institute's .org status.Hellwing 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little outside information indicates verifiability issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo of nonaccredited institute, i.e., "institute". Mukadderat 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we can spare 3KB for every pokemon card known to mankind... we can spare 2KB for a real verifiable place.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have a problem with us documenting known diploma mills so long as we specify that these institutions are not accredited. Silensor 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP (if any more detailed evidence of the institute being important in the intra-Baptist struggles that made it into non-Baptist press then I may consider changing my attitude). JoshuaZ 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Jew, I cannot possibly understand all the nuances that went into creating this school. But a thorough read through the articles regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine and was created to meet a perceived need for a new type of school. That a new school is not accredited by a well-known accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill. Nor do I find it at all unusual that the mainstream press hasn't latched on to this school as a subject for articles that would confer the notability so many feel it would be given. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of WP:V . I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding its nonaccreditation making it a suspected diploma mill to be a staggering violation of WP:AGF. I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding those who are so quick to delete it based on entirely unsupported suppositions and original research. Alansohn 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new kind of school? Unaccredited bible colleges offering worthless degrees are a dime a dozen. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I agree 100%. I see people deciding to delete this article because they have presumed that the article was created to push a diploma mill. The bad faith demonstrated regarding the institution itself is just gravy (bordering on bigotry). Alansohn 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per alahnsohn notability is not doubted here by me either Yuckfoo 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If notability isn't doubted by you then explain how it passes WP:CORP? Around 200 google hits and article asserts nothing.Arbusto 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuckfoo is an inclusionist. I think this is being Gastroturfed. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn; the article is informative, neutrally presented, and verifiable as it stands. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Range Studios[edit]

First AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Range Studios

This article was deleted after the first AfD, mostly over advertising/POV concerns. User:VegaDark requested to recreate a non-POV version of the article. So the questions for this round are: 1. Does the article adhere to WP:NPOV, and 2. Does the article successfully establish notability? ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since the first AfD I've made major improvements to the article to make it much more NPOV and encyclopedic Diff, which were the main reasons for it's original deletion. This company is to be considered notable based on the criteria at WP:CORP, please see my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12 on that. The article still needs cleanup so feel free to make any edits you feel appropriate, I erred on the side of keeping info when I did my rewrite so there is probably still some info the article could do without. VegaDark 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per VegaDark. A clear, NPOV article that establishes notability. Since there is no one really voting delete, I feel a speedy keep is in order. --Daniel Olsen 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't tell if you're serious. But if you are, I'd suggest that 13 minutes from AfD listing to deciding that no one is really voting delete is a bit hasty given that five days is typical. William Pietri 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three editors in the first AfD claimed non-notability. Since that's an open concern I doubt speedy applies here. ~ trialsanderrors 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I voted Weak Keep last time; User:VegaDark has definitely improved the quality of the article greatly, mostly by making the article shorter. Nicely done VegaDark. My Alt Account 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — much better than the draft :) -- lucasbfr talk 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. VegaDark has done great work, but I still don't see enough reliable sources that push the company over the line in WP:CORP. Specifically, of the references, the first two sources are interviews, which are not fact-checked. The third is an article written by one of the company founders. The fourth is commercial self-promotion. Five, seven, and ten are about The Meatrix, which we have covered. Eight is a press release with a single paragraph about one of their films. And eleven is their own site. That leaves only one reference, number six, a short article from the Epoch Times. With only one article that's actually about the company and from what I'd call a reliable source, to me this doesn't pass WP:CORP. It pains me to advocate deletion of such a nice-looking article, but unless more evidence of notability turns up, I don't see an alternative. Sorry, William Pietri 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree some of the sources are suspect, the first two I would consider meeting the requirements of WP:CORP (first isn't working right now though). I asked on the talk page if interviews meet the requirement or not and the answer was essentially "it depends, use good judgement". I think they look independent enough to be reliable. The fifth source is not only about the movie, part of the article about the company that made it. VegaDark 01:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. I left out reference 9, which is a link to an unsigned blog-ish post on a web portal. Sorry for the unintentional ommission. William Pietri 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with William Pietri here, looking at the Newsbank coverage I get less than ten mentions total, about half in passing, and none that are actually about the company. Four or five are about Store Wars, so that might be worth an article, but I'm unwilling to buy arguments that two sources are enough to fulfill WP:CORP when the WP article is longer than the full text length of the sources. We're here to summarize the existing sources, not to extend them. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tagged it as needing more relaible sources. I believe that is a better option than deleting the article outright when we do in fact have some reliable sources. VegaDark 02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think for the most part it needs to be cut down to size. I have no idea what the lengthy "Issues addressed" bullet point list is supposed to convey. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was 50/50 on deleting that entire section. Now that you mention it, consider it gone. VegaDark 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked through the refs, and though some of the links don't work (after only 11 days), there are enough that do that, to me, provide independent verifiability. That, plus the filmography shows plenty of notability in my book. I didn't see it before the page was redone, but it looks like it should be kept at this point. Akradecki 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Petri. Though the article looks nice, if it isn't just promotion, why are there so many images in the page? It does feel like free advertising to me... --Ogdred 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William's reasoning above. I share his disappointment - even I have heard of this and I am the last person to hear about web fads and the like, but the independent reliable sources simply do not seem to be there, and without them we can't have an article, because we can't verify the neutrality of the article. Guy 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite William's reasoning, a quick web search shows me that there's a lot more out there that can be used. WP:V should not be a major obstacle here. Okay, WP:CORP may be, but it seems like this is the kind of company that may fit in the fringes of that guideline... and I would really hesitate to classify this under "indiscriminate collection of information," and WP is not paper after all. As WP:NPOV is no longer an issue here, I think we can keep Vega's hard work. Mangojuicetalk 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find that these two sentences:

1. ...and the novelty of it got the attention of both the general public and the social activism community

2. ...Free Range delivered its first Flash animation piece that would have worldwide impact.

and the overall tone of the article is trying to be, at times, too corporate-bound, as someone from the company, Free Range Studios, or someone from an advertising firm hired for Free Range was to write to pronounce and glorify efforts, that I think, is from just another rank and file graphics firm. I understand that this studio has been instrumental in eliminating the civil war in Sierra Leone, but what percentage of contributions they gave to ending the bloodshed is questionable; (is there an article stating the direct cause Free Range Studio's movie had on both sides of the war? Would internet access and electricity be readily available for the warring sides? I simply cannot imagine whether the bloodshed in Sierra Leone, would have, even momentarily, ceased to watch and think about this Flash animation). Finally, The sources lack the tangible authority that Wikipedia is generally known for when its users produce knowledgeable, useful, and globally relative. The sources, or the lack thereof, appeal to people who have strong interest in graphic arts and is severely limited to that clique. An internet user would gather more information simply googling for Free Range Studios, and visiting the company's official website.Hellwing 00:11, 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, A7 (no assertion of notability). Guy 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Parkins[edit]

I cannot verify this information and the article is unsourced. Deville (Talk) 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN governmentofficialcruft. WP:NOT directory of civil servants, until they do something notable. My Alt Account 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn govt appointee (yeah, like Charlotte really needs homeland security?) Akradecki 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very weak keep and expand. There was a big to-do, at least here in New York, when it was noted that Charlotte got quite a bit more money per capita (at least) for homeland security than New York, where as we were so recently reminded there's been an attack already. Parkins is at least tangentially involved just ex officio.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Else every municipal director of homeland security is going to want their own page.... --Ogdred 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every government worker in every municipality needs a bio page. eaolson 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 10:53, 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 redirect. Sango123 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Residential College[edit]

Non notable residential college at the University of Miami. Google hits are mostly from the University of Miami website. Babomb 01:07, 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. Sango123 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Flight 7145[edit]

This is not a major aviation incident. No one died, the cause of the crash is not peculiar; its just a plane that crashed. It has no encyclopedic value. – Zntrip 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; non-notable flight that experienced a minor emergency. Only four relevant Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per google search. --Daniel Olsen 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete aviation-incident cruft. Not every single filed incident is notable, and this one sure as hell isn't. There's a very good reason why it didn't get any news coverage. My Alt Account 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — pfff... no one died, not interesting ;) (per nom) -- lucasbfr talk 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cynicism aside, non-notable.UberCryxic 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per palpable lack of external interest. There never will be any real sources on this apparently unimportant and not particularly unusual incident. Guy 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be not as notable as other articles in Category:In-flight airliner fires. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom, though it's reasonably well written Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although it is obvious how this discussion is going, I like the idea of this article. It is an article about the successful control of an emergency situation. It is from emergencies like this one that our technical society learns to improve. Because of this incident, emergency handling procedures and emergency equipment can be improved. If the incident had been a disaster, and then, I suppose, notable, with all the Souls on Board (S.O.B.'s) dead, then there would be fewer learnings. But most likely, for this article to be notable the authors would need to make more clear the notable learnings from this incident. I think there was a hint of those learnings in the criticism of the air traffic response to their emergency. As an aside, it is most likely very notable to the family and friends of the crew that they did not become an encyclopedic event. WVhybrid 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a database of incidents. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Flight 597. Emergencies should be described on a page where people will look for them. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:05, 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, discounting SPAs, newbies. Alkivar's keep would be more compelling if it weren't in Pirate-Day Pirate-Speak. :) Xoloz 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Scott (Life Tabernacle Church)[edit]

non-notable, fails verifiablity, fails WP:LIVING —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nom. The reference links don't work, and an affidavit is not a reliable source. —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Many of the details would be verifiable (there was a civil suit). The first link does work, pointing to a news article, and there is back-up on the Ross page, stating that this did bankrupt the CAN. There is clearly an honest attempt at sourcing the aticle here. Is this deletion request in good faith? --Ogdred 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and being the case that caused the Cult Awareness Network to go bankrupt and end up in the hands of the Scientologists (assuming that is indeed true) is certainly notable in my book. --Ogdred 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the nom is in good faith. Neither of the links was working when I nommed it. I agree that the case itself is notable, but is the person? —Hanuman Das 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. Shortfuse 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uhh...so is he really notable because litigation involving him caused the CAN to go bankrupt? And in that case why isn't it enough that the CAN article covers this? This fellow is a private citizen who does not seem to have done anything besides file a lawsuit against the CAN. Litigants in lawsuits, even if the lawsuits generate famous issues or produce famous results, are not usually notable. We should respect this guy's privacy. Allon Fambrizzi 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Yeah, what he said. —Hanuman Das 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I see it, the article passes WP:V, WP:LIVING and the links work, so most of the reasons for deletion given here are not valid. The article presents reasonable detail about his notability, including not just the suit itself, but the circumstances around the later settlement, and attempts by his former lawyer to nullify it, so Scott is not just a plaintiff here. On top of that, it is a fairly well written and sourced page, in contrast to most of what is being discussed here. --Ogdred 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ultimately this is not about Jason Scott the man, it's about the Jason Scott deprogramming incident and subsequent repercussions. The subject appears to have little or no coverage outside of that restricted locus. Thus, covering it in the articles on CAN and Ross is both logical and prudent per WP:LIVING . I am not sure the subjecty would consider this incident to be the sum totalof his life's worth, and as the article says his current activities are unknown (for good reason: he is not actually independently notable). Nor is this article entirely about Jason Scott, a fair bit of it is about his mother as well. Overall, I'd say delete this history and redirect the few inbound links to CAN. Guy 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with/redirect to CAN article. --Roninbk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This man had a huge effect on the deprogrammer industry. Seano1 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename The arguments for renaming the page to something like "The Rick Ross -- Jason Scott Case" make sense, but the information is too important to the history of cults to delete. Thank you. User:AOrange 17:08 13 September 2006 (PDT) — Possible single purpose account: AOrange (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • Keep. I agree with AOrange that it might be renamed after the Case, though, as it's not really about Jason Scott's life, just his famous case. --Eileen R 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a biography, but an article about a court case, a case which is only important in the context of CAN. Any info not in the CAN article should be merged into it. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrrrrr this be a Keep says I tis a famous incident... methinks this belongs as a keep!  ALKIVAR™ 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge any relevant details into the CAN article. TewfikTalk 18:49, 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. Sango123 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NebraskaFish[edit]

Notability/importance in question. Text itself indicates ...NebraskaFish's is known to few outside the state of Nebraska... — NMChico24 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a google search brings up 28 unique hits: nothing but official webpages, stumbleupon links, and ebay hits from the user doing business under the name Nebraskafish. --Daniel Olsen 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above until this actually gets substantial media coverage. Irongargoyle 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the article isn't a biography.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable sticker art.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who needs to know about non-famous stickers depicting cartoon fish? --physicq210 05:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and unprovable assertions plus a guy with an inkjet printer. Hard to call it anything but spam, really. Guy 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Thε Halo Θ 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 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. Not only was it never going to pass muster, it was created by the developer and was inconsistent about whether it actually exists or not. So while it might not strictly qualify for speedy (although actually it did lack sufficient context to establish why anyone would want it), it does qualify for early closure before the AfD becomes an attack on the creator. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Guy 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secure the system[edit]

Fails WP:SOFTWARE as a minor utility and was created by the developer. Crystallina 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable software; no relevant Google results [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A1? --Ogdred 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. This at least tries to provide context. Crystallina 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does that count as context? No explanation of what it is or what it does, just how big it is? Just curious... --Ogdred 03:46, 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.

Blanked, per request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horse ripping compared to cattle mutilation[edit]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calera Presbyterian Church[edit]

Delete. Non-notable church. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ogdred 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Calera, Alabama - plenty of room there for a little article like this, has some nice historical data, and one of the five unique non-Wikipedia googles is the local historical archive, which suggests some merit to it. Guy 12:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Calera, Alabama. Most local churches (temples, mosques, etc...) don't merit that much, but this one is at least on a historic register. [15]. GRBerry 01:12, 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 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Czwartkowski[edit]

An unencyclopedic article on a nn Canadian author and poet whose children's book, All Aboard The School Bus, co-written with four other writers, is not recognized by Amazon.ca and Chapters.Indigo.ca (the country's two largest booksellers), and receives a total of three unique ghits - all sourced through Wikipedia. The anthologies in which Czartkowski has appeared are also not recognized. Possibly a vanity article - the original editor has contributed exclusively to this article, Robert L.J. Zenik (Czwartkowski's husband), and lists, such as List of Canadian poets, to which the user has added Zenik and Czwartkowski. Victoriagirl 02:34, 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 bone-shattering roundhouse delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHI-GI 氣-기[edit]

  • Delete: Possibly a hoax? Definitely unsourced and I can't find any verification for this even existing. A martial arts form founded in New Zealand sounds a little fishy, no? If someone can prove me wrong, I'll gladly end this early. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not entirely sure about this -- it doesn't exactly look like a hoax to me, just poorly written and unsourced. (Oh, and the characters and caps in the title would have to go.) I cwould deleat on WP:V, as I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Ogdred 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Zazaban 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . A martial art with moves like "KI PUSH BLAST KICK" and "KI ROUNDHOUSE BLAST KICK"? With hardly any relevant Google hits? Sounds like a hoax to me...--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without going into whether this particular article is a hoax or not, I want to point out a big pitfall of counting ghits for a term in Chinese, namely that transcriptions and transliterations can vary -- I can think of at least three transliteration systems just for Mandarin, not to mention whatever one-off ways people come up with of contextlessly writing down one Chinese word in Roman letters.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, note that the characters in the title are half Chinese and half Korean ("기" is a Korean character), which may be further proof that the article is a hoax.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - I am going to go to NZ to track these guys down. Then, I'm going to kick all their asses. I will be able to fully document the martial art once I'm done doing this. Until then, no evidence that it even exists. My Alt Account 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that original research? 8-)–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ass-kicking will get very substantial independent coverage. My Alt Account 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After some further reading, it seems that the article is defiantly a hoax. Qi (or Ki as the Japanese call it) can't be used to actually alter the forces of nature, thus a "Ki push blast kick" or "Ki roundhouse blast kick" would be impossible. Using Ki in such a way only exists in martial arts movies, but not in real life. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sounds totally silly, there is no way it can be a real martial art. Cheifsguy 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A hoax. Allon Fambrizzi 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment Hoaxes are not criterias for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD for more info.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless verified. Looks like hoax to me.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Thε Halo Θ 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although chi-gi appears to be a valid term for a kind of strike in martial arts, that's not what this purports to be about, and the title includes nonstandard capitalisation and non-Western characters, making it a case of the wrong content at the wrong title - hoax or not, it has to go. Guy 12:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Though it's true that chi is used in martial arts, note that "pushing" things with chi is entirely fictional. As I've said above, using chi like that only exists in martial arts movies, fighting video games, and the Star War films (where it's known as The Force).--TBCTaLk?!? 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or severely non-notable. --Storkk 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a (poorly written) fictional martial art system, apparently inspired by fighting games and bad anime. --Roninbk 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not really equipped to evaluate this, but if it is kept, it not only needs cleanup, but some attention to compliance with Naming conventions–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recent research indicates that CHI-GI . . . developed from a need to defend themselves form an attacker, and that it was also used as a way to have fun in the small towns, as in sports events. Were this "recent research" available, it might make a case. But how much "research" does it take to confirm that this one claims to do what all other martial arts do? If kept, remove Sinograms from the title. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think it might take more research than you would think, just to hurdle WP:NOR --Roninbk 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless nom. is proved wrong. Arbusto 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The section on elbow techniques is a direction rip from the wikipedia's muay thai article, it has its own section called elbow techniques and it is word for word. This would devalue the CHI-GI article's value, meaning it should be deleted.Tiatzu 2:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Reading further, the entire thing was ripped off to varying degrees from Muay Thai My God, plagiarism within Wikipedia? Where does it stop? This user is using humor to illustrate a point, but is serious about the Delete --Roninbk 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tiatzu and Roninbk. Also, no reference has ever been made to this "chi gi" on usenet.[16] Shawnc 15:04, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem[edit]

Delete. Non-notable synagogue. Most synagogues, churches, etc are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except B'nai Yosef Synagogue, on which I am undecided. Is the mural painter significant as an artist? —Ogdred 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep B'nai Yosef Synagogue and Beth Sholom Synagogue, delete the rest. The mural painter seems to be notable, and Beth Sholom was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The rest don't appear notable. BryanG(talk) 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per various below, procedural keep all and renominate individually. I'm not particularly convinced of the notability of the rest of these articles, but a mass AfD is clearly a bad idea. BryanG(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bryan G.'s move to Keep B'nai Yosef and Beth Sholom and Delete the rest. Perhaps it would be best to withdraw those two, which are notable on architectual grounds? Allon Fambrizzi 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Keep all of these for now. Please renominate a few separately, but only after considering other and better options. This is not a good group-nomination. There are a few possibly "deletes" here, another few which I'd like to see kept, and a few which could possibly be merged. A few appear recent and architecturally undistinguished (B'nai Avraham Synagogue, building purchased 1995) or focus on seemingly non-notable minor congregations (Yavneh Minyan, Harford Jewish Center), and these should be nominated separately. Several of the others appear to be about synagogues or congregations from the mid-19th century and the oldest or one of the oldest in various American cities, such as Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue (Brooklyn, congregation from 1856, synagogue from 1855 but originally a church and acquired in 1905; family synagogue of Aaron Copland). At the very least, the better-written of these articles should be merged into articles on more general topics such as the History of the Jews in San Francisco. I am sure such articles could be written. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is a rather pointless stub but claims that it is "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States" - that suggests just redirecting to the general article on Karaite Judaism, where this synagogue is mentioned, would be the best option. Then we have the one designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and the one completely covered with murals by Archie Rand — obvious keeps. up+l+and 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have withdrawn my nominations for Beth Sholom Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue per above suggestions. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per Uppland. With all due respect to the nominator it looks as if this might need more eyes. How about an RfC or a Wikiproject discussion for a group view on which should be nominated, which merged to their local community and which kept? I'm not confortable with the fact that some self-evident keeps have come out in the wash here. Guy 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guy's suggestion is excellent! This entire effort should be discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, with many well-informed editors, where it will receive the hearing it deserves. The world-at-large cannot take upon itself to act as a "tribunal" for which synagogues are or are not notable to Jewish people in the communities they live in. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete all, now that the Beth Sholom and B'nai Yosef have been removed. Weak, because Guy's suggestion makes some sense.Storkk 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except B'nai Avraham Synagogue and Yavneh Minyan. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is significant as "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States" The rest have over 50 years of history (most significantly more) so it is very likely that there are verfiable sources related to them that are hard to find (there is a simmlar logic at a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Schools). Jon513 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sure there are verifiable sources related to them, but they simply are not notable. Tons of articles on topics and places with over 50 years of history have been deleted from Wikipedia because they weren't notable. This holds true for these synagogues. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that they are as notable as a small village. Jon513 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What User:Danielrocks123 is overlooking is that most modern Jewish communities stem from waves of immigration that arrived about 100 years ago, so that 50 years is a significant time-frame. He also overlooks that each subject has to be understood in its own context, and that Notability is relative and a subject must be understood in its own context first. Not all subjects are the same or equal. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per Uppland Hello32020 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I detest group Afds and think they are usually poor, impatient, and lazy generalized cleanup efforts. Some of these need cleanup or more meat and effort, or maybe even deleting. Who's expected to comment on each one and make it a coherent discussion? --Shuki 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Non-notable synagogues per nom. changes. Keep all, these should be listed individually as some are obviously notable. Arbusto 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The ones I looked at are notable. --YUL89YYZ 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural non-precedential keep all. The mass AfD is unjustified. It's quite possible all should be deleted, but we need to do it individually. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Most of these articles are clearly notable, and most of those make explicit claims of notability. Given the weight of worthwhile articles here, I say keep all of them. Alansohn 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think these should be brought individually, but keep all in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I may be a tad biased here, since I wrote both the Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue articles, synagogues I am rather fond of, and which were both nominated for deletion. But honestly, look at those articles - the oldest continuously operated synagogue in Brooklyn (over 150 years) is not notable? A world famous Sephardi synagogue uniquely and completely covered in murals is not notable? Even one I didn't write, the Beth Sholom Synagogue, which has has been listed by the American Institute of Architects as one of the 17 American buildings which are to be preserved as an example of Frank Lloyd Wright's contribution to American architecture, is not notable? Admittedly the last two have been removed from nomination, but still, this mass deletion request was not well considered. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, and reconsider the deletions used as a basis for this mass deletion effort, as so few bothered to vote that it probably the decision was not based on a consensus. Most churches, synagogues, etc., are in fact notable - WP is not paper.--Leifern 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all renominate each individually. Jay et al.make excellent points in that there may be some worthy of deletion, but many not, and lumping them all together only serves to obfuscate matters. Avi 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all First of all I am really aversed to mass-nominations, if you are not sure of the notability of a topic you go by a case by case basis, you don't nominate every single article in the subject for deletion. Second of all, I really do not understand the nominator's reasoning, most of these synagogues seem notable enough for a wikipedia article. This entire episode really reminds me of the hundred or so nominations by User:PZFUN.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now on procedural grounds, per Uppland, Shuki, CrazyRussian and others. Just as a side note, if someone is around Brooklyn a photo or two of the murals in B'nai Yosef would be a great addition to the article, if that can be arranged. 6SJ7 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Jayjg. Reconsider on individual basis. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Jayj Shuki, CrazyRussian. Some of these certainly should be deleted and some of these certainly should be kept. This is not an effective method of doing this. JoshuaZ 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jayg, Shuki, Crzrussian. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayjg and others. I want to add that these synagogues are not just *well, for almost all( notable in and of themselves / these pages cumulatively document a historical geography of the Jewish people. My suggestion is instead of deleting these articles - or even articles on Churches or lighthouses - we rethink them. I used to be opposed to all "lists" because I thought what is the point of just a list? But now I realize, as Wikipedia has grown and as our coverage has grown both in scale and complexity, that series of articles like these can fulfil a very valuable function. A list of lighthouses, for example, is not just a series of articles on tourist sites or points of possible architectural interest. They can provide a historical geography of maritime history, illustrating how the organization of regional and global shipping has changed over the years with new technologies, new forms of consumer demand, etc. Similarly, I do not think a series of articles on "churches" should just be about buildings - these buildings illustrate important moments in the history of a geographically dispersed phenomena, it is a whole other way of writing about religion. Now, there happens to be a fair amount of research in historical geography so I am not making this up, and I bet there are very good secondary sources one could draw on in using those articles to map out the historical geography of different religious movements. I see this request for deletion as an opportunity to take stock of just what Wikipedia can do. I urge not only that these articles be kept but that editors working on them coordinate their efforts to ensure that the articles (synagogues) on this list not only talk about buildings, but use these buildings to talk about where and when Jewish communities have waxed and waned. The result of this kind of work on these articles (and similar series) can really push wikipedia further as a scholarly resource. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Keep separate articles for those that are notable buildings, or notable as per Slrubenstein above, and the others can be aggregated in one article such as Synagogues in San Francisco or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per Uppland. Tomertalk 03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To refine my perspective...I went with "keep all" in agreement with Uppland's recommendation, but I think Jossi actually offers a better proposal... While those synagogue articles that deal with congregations that aren't particularly noteworthy on their own, from an encyclopedic standpoint, specifically, they are noteworthy from the perspective of the history of Judaism in the US [or whereëver else, for that matter]... If a synagogue isn't noteworthy on its own, specifically sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article, it is, more likely than not, sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention and some coverage in a more wide-ranging article such as Synagogues in San Francisco, or...and here's what's swaying my perspective, Synagogues in Wisconsin... Three defunct synagogues, and that's only the ones that come immediately to mind, in Wisconsin (in Madison, Stevens Point and Appleton are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet none of them, in my view, are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant independent articles. I know there are 3 defunct synagogues in Superior, 2 in Sheboygan, and one in Ashland, as well... All of which probably wouldn't warrant mention in Encyclopedia Brittanica, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think a failure to understand that concept is probably what prompted this nomination, especially where that concept butts heads with WP:N. And so, I'm going to refine my opinion to keep all, merging into appropriately-named articles where warranted. To clarify, I'm strongly opposed to this group nomination, but I think it has been a beneficial exercise nonetheless. If my view holds sway, the aftermath would probably be most productively pursued at WikiProject Judaism... Tomertalk 07:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those that do not assert notability beyond "it has a rabbi and some communal activities, and one or two famous members". Inclusion criteria should be significant notability/notoriety. I agree with Daniel that synagogues sec are not notable, and agree with Jay that some may be notable (e.g. architecture, antiquity) - those should be kept. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, because Jews amount to only about 13 million people in the world and their houses of worship have always been integral to their Jewish identity, especially outside of Israel. Does User:Danielrocks123 also intend to nominate the thousands of articles about churches in Category:Churches and mosques in Category:Mosques for deletion? So why then is he picking on these articles from Category:Synagogues? His nominations here are fatally flawed. IZAK 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is based on a mass deletion of churches. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. Jon513 10:09, 17 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) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Evangelical Lutheran Church[edit]

Probably not a notable congregation. Another user endorsed this proposed deletion. Peter O. (Talk) 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ogdred 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly generic. Nothing here to establish local or historical significance. Guy 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deltree (bringing back the DOS days of delete). Two or three HELC's in Fargo, ND...why is this one notable? Also very very Adverty! Not encyclopedic at all --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the user that put prod2 on the article. (Yes, this is a contested prod.) No evidence, or even assertion, of notability or importance in the article. No independent reliable sources used. GRBerry 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 06:09, 17 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 05:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquanodd labs[edit]

Vanity page of non-notable corporation. No hits on google. No alexa traffic ranking. No evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 03:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS criterias.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ogdred 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, This site RE-launched itself this month. There are hits from google, yahoo, altavista, msn search, etc.... This corporation is well known in new york. This site should stay up because of its' deep historical impact it had in the streets of new york. More input will be placed within the article as time goes on. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.141.22 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment, if really had a "deep historical impact it had in the streets of new york", then why are there no Google results (excluding those from Wikipedia)? [17]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [after edit conflict] You appear to be mistaken about the search engine hits ([18]). Delete as non-notable. -Elmer Clark 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, actually, I used the full name of the company in my Google search, Aquanodd Labs, whereas you used only the word "aquanodd", so technically neither of us are mistaken.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 10:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:CORP. PJM 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to establish importance from reliable secondary sources. Reads as an advert, and it's not obvious what we'd use to fix that, or why we should care enough to do so. Guy 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero Google hits using Aquanodd labs -Myspace -Wikipedia [19] --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per google's lack of knowledge. Arbusto 22:33, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson II, L. R.[edit]

It really does read too much like an advertisement. And no citations. Bordello 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. --Daniel Olsen 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His web site says that Upside Down Art is hanging at the Louvre -- that sounds pretty important to me! Delete. --Ogdred 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Does not seem like any issues exist to justify further discussion. Allon Fambrizzi 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
    • Comment. How does it fall under WP:CSD? Not having any "issues existing" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Also, the nomination has been recently created, so there's always a chance for someone further on to bring up new evidence showing that the article may be notable.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --physicq210 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement created by the artist's promoter. Guy 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Thε Halo Θ 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google returns no independent info about this guy. It seems like an hoax or con. Seano1 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Arbusto 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you delete me then would you delete my Uncle, Ernest Emerson of Emerson Knives, known all over the word and who's knives are used by US/British special forces? "My art "introduced to Lourve" L R.E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.17.90 (talk • contribs) 14 September 2006.
    • Maybe, maybe not. The AfD debates are not linked in any way, they only create a "precedent" if the cases are extremely similar, and even in that case they're always independently considered. (If anything, delete debates can provide guidance to forging the notability criteria.) In this case this article's debate wouldn't have any bearings whatsoever on deletion debate of Ernest Emerson, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WIKIPEDIA -DOES NOT GET MY POINT -You suggest Google was a source for verification! Ha, I am the source for verification! My uncle-Ernest Emerson, I am also the 13th Great Nephew of Hannah Emerson -DUSTIN, who's reatated to Ralph Waldo Emerson, thus I am also part of the Ralph Waldo Emerson Family Tree, and so is my Uncle, Ernest Emerson. Emersons have been in the US since the 1640's. Don't delete any one of us until you know your facts. Goolge should never be your only source. My accomplishments are well documented in many ways and I do not share all of my work with the web or with it's users. This year alone I am giving away $1,000,000 in art. Is this also nothing to Wikipedia??? Delete me I don't care, delete all of the Emerson's. - signed L. R. Emerson II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.21.197 (talk • contribs) .
    • First, Google test is only something that gives people a gut feeling on how widespread or popular something is - it's not a substitute for notability criteria, but it's an indicator among many. But in this case, it's pretty problematic: the article has no references. If we can't google this, how on Earth anyone is supposed to fill the references and clean up the ad tone? One would guess there were a lot of web references famous people of this caliber, no? Yet none are referenced in the article, not even the printed material, none of the press material. Second, "this person has famous relatives/ancestors" is not a positive notability criterion. We've already deleted a lot of articles on the grounds that they're just some celebrity's children with absolutely no accomplishments of their own. Third, please don't take AfDs personally. We're not debating about your worthiness, we're debating whether or not the article fits our inclusion criteria in this state. And forthly, please sign your comments by using the signature button on the toolbar, or using four tildes in row (~~~~) after your comment. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Celebrity - Ha!! I am not desiring nor needing celebrity. As far as references within the article Emerson Knives and Ernest Emerson's work as well as Hannah Emerson Dustin and Ralph Waldo Emerson's work are easily researchable on the web. Only since last year have I allowed work about myself to be posted on the web by my representative e4 FINE ART, e4fineart.com., >To talk</, you mention google was only "one" way of many way to get a gut reaction to an article, despite that on goolge searching "l. R. Emerson II" produces 3 pages of results. Are you saying I do not exist at all. Even just in May, 2006 my work was exhibited at Virginia's elite and nationally respected, Contemporary Arts Center and two television programs have recently been in contact with me. My work was being published as early as 1985 in both trade magazines and Newspapers. Work has also been on th cover of Entertainment Sections of Daily newspapers and other newspapers. During the past 20 years more than 100 awards, including ceremonies in my honor have be bestowed upon me - not that I care or I would have introduced my "upside-down art" 20 years ago. Instead I professionally perused art starting in 1985 and built a tremendously successful business, as awards came in and in 2005 hired assigned a major portion of my work over to e4 FINE ART to represent and promote. I am not really sure why this is any of your "talk pages" business to know.

Is every article on wikipedia written with every single detail of a person's ( they are the subject) life or life's work. Seems to me the majority of the qualitative comments on this discussion about deleting the article have been that There were no references or that the style of the writing sounded like an ad. There are some published biographical articles in the possession of e4 FINE ART, which do not sound like an ad. Is Wikipedia saying these should be incorporated into the article, "Emerson, L. R.' ?

Sounds to me Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia edited by users but rather an encyclopedia wishing it was Britannica. It is not critical for me to see that all evidence of my success be posted to the web. So to use google as a "primary" source, albeit ‘gut feeling’ or whatever is bogus. My accomplishments speak for themselves and there is so much more to be told and to come. If other tests exist to define the merit of an article what are they??? L. R. E. 4.88.19.176 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)/* Emerson II, L. R. */[reply]

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia edited by users. It's also an encyclopaedia that is edited by users. This may sound surprising. "Editing" doesn't just mean "add random information that someone finds interesting", yes, we value that too. But editing also means "summarise, compare, add sources, add pointers to further information". That's what "real" encyclopaedias do, too. As said above, don't require web sources, just sources that are reliable and sufficiently public. You say you have newspaper sources - that's fine, by all means, do add them to the article. Please be specific - it's not enough to say "has appeared on cover of magazines", but it would be prudent to give examples of such. As for published bios, we can't use them, due to copyright reasons, unless they're licenced under GFDL - but they can be used as starting points and sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:57, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish vocabulary[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Individually, these would be grounds for deletion as they are all dictionary defintions. Collectively, they're just a list of dict defs, and no more notable for it. eaolson 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a quick renaming of the article; sorry about that, but the article had just been created. I will fix all the links. Cheers. --Vsion 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom; fails WP:WINAD.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a translator, nor the Singaporian urban dictionary. --Daniel Olsen 04:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — At most, words should be added to Wiktionary. – Zntrip 04:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The words provide an insight into Singapore culture and these are not dictionary definitions, but explanations of various expressions used in Singapore. --Han Sheng 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Many of these are not words but phrases and expressions which are commonly used in Singapore. This page would be helpful to users who have read the page on Singlish --Han Sheng 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, What makes a list of "explanations of various expressions used in Singapore" any different than an urban dictionary? Also how much does an expression have to be "used" to be considered notable enough to be on the list?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many similar articles in Category:Lexis. Moreover, this article is a split from Singlish which was too large. --Vsion 04:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I wouldn't consider this article similar to other articles in Category:Lexis, since this article simply lists every single word in the Singlish vocabulary, whereas most of the other articles in Category:Lexis have descriptions on history and background.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your argument. Nonethelss, the list does not intend to list every word in Singlish, but rather it lists only selected and representative words. A detailed Singlish lexicon can be found in http://www.singlishdictionary.com/ and it is hugh. The Afded-article only consists of a small and illustrative subset of the most common words. And we try to relate it to Singapore's history and culture. In addition, the etymology of some words is also provided where it would be interesting and informative. --Vsion 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article "lists only selected and representative words", its still basically a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which violates the WP:WINAD policy. Why not just remove the vocabulary definitions and add a section on the history and cultural background of the Singlish language?--TBCTaLk?!? 05:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, I'm a deletionist. This article is a useful appendix to the Singlish article. I find Daniel Olsen's comparison to urbandictionary to not be apt: people from Singapore really do talk like this ;-) My Alt Account 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though you may be correct in that "people from Singapore really do talk like this", how does that prove this isn't bascially just an urban dictionary? After all, a lot of people do use slang words.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that urbandictionary is full of made-up shit. Half the stuff that's "real" is less than 10 years old. The stuff in Singlish vocabulary existed before most of its practitioners were born, and it's well studied by linguists. My impression is that both linguists and "native speakers of Singlish" (if that concept makes sense) maintain the articles. While I don't particularly endorse the use of singlish, it's not really comparable to slang. My Alt Account 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linguists consider Singlish a pidgin. How is it relevant that it's not a formal version of English? And where was that disputed anyhow? Hell, I can hardly understand it (sort of annoying, since singlish speakers seem to expect native english speakers to understand them). WP:WINAD is mostly intended to prevent dicdef stub articles and (IMO) has little to say for or against the purpose of Singlish vocabulary. If I were to attack it, I'd be pointing to policies about lists. My Alt Account 07:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned that it was not a formal version of English and thus a type of slang, since you stated earlier on that Singlish was "not really comparable to slang." Either way, how does it make sense that a dicdef stub can violate the WP:WINAD policy, yet a list of dicdefs do not? According to your interpretation of WP:WINAD, any dicdef could bypass the WP:WINAD policy if written longer than a stub or in list form. Also, though the article doesn't seem to violate any list guidelines (note there are no policies on lists), it does however violate the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MAA (and I'm not bothered by the "list" aspect of this article, which is designed to explain by giving examples), though I wish the subject matter of the article were more clearly declared in the opening: i.e. that this is a Singaporean dialect. Allon Fambrizzi 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
  • Keep per MAA. Unlike the typical neologism/slang term of the week AfDs, this article really does look useful. Improvements can be made (the pronunciation of "bloody" early on in the piece looks odd), but this is hardly a reason to delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've removed the entry as it is not an expression unique to Singlish. --Han Sheng 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Singlish is definitely notable; my friends and I speak it every day. We have an article listing Internet slang - why not Singlish? I don't think there is a Singlish Wiktionary; if there is, I'd support adding these words there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That argument is based upon a fundamental error. The English Wiktionary takes all words in all languages, just as the English Wikipedia deals with topics from all countries. The "English" part is the language that its articles are written in. Uncle G 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary or phrasebook. This article, on the other hand, is. Find a home for a transwiki if we can. Guy 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is not just a dictionary or phrasebook. Giving readers an idea of what Singlish is like is helpful in their understanding to Singlish. By looking at the list, they can see how English, Malay, Hokkien etc. are mixed into Singlish. The origins of some of the terms are also indicated to show how various terms have come about. Those that are not indicated are still being researched or verified.
  • Comment. Isn't one of the main purposes of a Singlish dictionary is to give "readers an idea of what Singlish is like is helpful in their understanding to Singlish"?--TBCTaLk?!? 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes but a Singlish dictionary would be too specific and no one who wants to find out what Singlish is about quickly will have the time to go through a Singlish dictionary. This article is meant to give readers a general understanding of Singlish based on a representative list of words. It is not simply a list of dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions don't usually explain how the terms came about. --Han Sheng 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What does it mean to be a "representative list" of words? How were some words and phrases chosen as "representative" and others excluded? For example, I don't see what telling someone that "gabra" means "very confused" tells them other than the meaning of the word. I also think you'll find that any dictionary worth its salt does explain how a term came about; see [20] for example. eaolson 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether words are representative or not are not determined by just one person. That is exactly why this article is here for others to contribute. This article is still a work in progress. The words that simply list their definitions are still being worked on and I have yet to find additional information for these entries. These words are simply left-over from when this article was still a section in the Singlish page. It was never my intention to make this page a plain list of Singlish vocab and their definitions. I'm working hard to clean it up and make it more useful to wikipedia. That's also the reason why i added the clean-up tag to the top of the list. --Han Sheng 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a list of dictionary definitions, plain and simple. Work a few examples into the text of Singlish and it's not a problem. List them like this and it violates WP:NOT. kingboyk 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the problem is that many people who are actually proposing to delete this article don't understand what Singlish is about at all. Some might think that Singlish is something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages. Fact is, Singlish has been around for more then 40 years, since Singapore's coloial days, and has slowly been evolving till its current stage today. It is not possible just to "work a few examples into the text of Singlish" as it would not be representative. Furthermore, this page originated from the article on Singlish and was split because the page was growing too long. If this page is to be deleted and a few examples were put back into the article on Singlish, the page would start growing too long again as more and more people add their examples. There are many similar pages available on Wikipedia, such as Australian English vocabulary, and they exist undisturbed. I'm not sure why there is a sort of double standard being practised here. I feel that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore to decide whether this page is representative of Singlish and will help others in the understanding of Singlish. --Han Sheng 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know what Singlish is la so please don't try to insult my intelligence. I have about half a passport full of SG entry/exit stamps. Delete the examples if they get too many. It's cruft. I know the problem, we get the same problem at The Beatles where newbies try to add every factlet under the sun about the group, but it's something we have to deal with. Singlish is an important English dialect which requires an article, but it's not so important that we have to breach WP:NOT and become a dictionary. --kingboyk 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one here is claiming that Singlish is "something arbitiary formed from throwing together words from a few other languages." Also, no matter how long Singlish has been around, the article is still nothing more than just a list of Singlish dictionary definitions, which is a violation of the WP:WINAD policy. Other related vocabulary pages continue to exist because they describe grammar, history, and background , whereas this article simply lists the definition every single Singlish related expression, which as I mentioned before violates WP:WINAD. As for your comment stating that "that this issue should be left to Wikipedians based in Singapore", please remember that Wikipedia (being a Wiki) is a community based project, thus issues are resolved among the Wikipedian community, not just a select group of users. --TBCTaLk?!? 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm not sure how (as an example) Australian English vocabulary differs from this page. How does it describe "grammar, history and background"? Anyway, I apologise if I stepped on a few toes while putting forward my argument on keeping this article. I'm still not too familiar about how things work around here as this is my first time participating in an Afd discussion. I see my mistake in suggesting that only Wikipedians based in Singapore should decide this matter. However, i hope that Singapore-based Wikipedians will have something valuable to contribute on the Singlish vocabulary page so as to make the information worth keeping on Wikipedia. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment, I was referring to other vocabulary articles, such as the Spanish vocabulary or Turkish vocabulary articles, which do contain segments on grammar, history, background, etc. Either way though, I suggest that Australian English vocabulary be nominated as well for deletion, as it too seems to be a list of dicdefs.--TBCTaLk?!? 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT (which is policy and isn't negotiable) excludes this exact thing. "We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep," it says, and we aren't teaching people how to talk like a guy from Singapore either. Recury 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added further info in the introduction regarding attempts at organising Singlish vocabulary into a dictionary. Hope that would be something that is considered useful. --Han Sheng 18:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe the list of world could be shrunk. Seano1 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Current state of article is appalling, but it should not be deleted just because of the lists - remove them and provide better detail. Singlish's vocabulary as a creole is quite diverse - ranging from Hokkien to Malay as well as English corruptions, worthy of documentation. John Riemann Soong 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, what do you mean by "should not be deleted just because of the lists"? The article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions, which is a violation of WP:WINAD, a policy (not just a guideline) of Wikipedia.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not consist of only dictionary definitions. There is useful information regarding the attempts at documentation of Singlish vocabulary and the usage of such vocabulary. --Han Sheng 03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lists" in the sense of indiscriminate lists of dictionary definitions. We should use wiktionary for that, but there are notable topics to cover about vocabulary ... once the lists are cleaned up we might have a shorter article to improve. 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup - as per John Riemann Soong. Ergative rlt 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not dictionary. At least delete the terms part. Pavel Vozenilek 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup - as per Ergative rlt. Leet speak, a fictional language invented by online gamers, has its own comprehensive article. However, this article lists only words that are explainable and have the highest level of usage in online gaming. With proper cleanup, Singlish vocabulary deserves a spot in Wikipedia, as nuances in a specialized form of Singaporean-English dialect is representative of cultural and lingual knowledge of a certain country and group of people; an aspect highly appropriate for Wikipedia. Hellwing 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this "article was nominated, not because it was a list, but because it consists of only dictionary definitions", then I must presume the 566 words in the introduction are either invisible to them or are considered worthy for deletion as well? This article is a helper article for Singlish to keep the later succint, and to allow for detailed and close examination of Singlish vocabulary. It is indeed strange that a change in format of factual presentation is probably all that is enough to swing votes in either direction.--Huaiwei 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When this article was nominated, it was only a list. See [21] eaolson 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That is a common occurance, and in fact, editors are greatly encouraged to improve on articles and save them from being deleted. I thus find it amusing that some editors continue to claim it was "nothing but dictionary definitions" when the article was rapidly expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated.--Huaiwei 14:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much of the intro has been expanded yesterday, at least with three new sections, whereas at the time I commented the intro consisted only of a single paragraph. I suggest you please check the edit history first before claiming that it was "expanded and improved on almost immediately after it was nominated", which it was not.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, we can just list a number of that long list, and make it encyclopedic. This is a legitimate topic and Singaporeans converse in Singlish daily. This article is to explain some of the more well known Singlish words as foreigners mainly do not understand it. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and that is the job of a dictionary not an encyclopedia. That said, get rid of the definitions list and replace it with prose and it's a legitimate article. --kingboyk 14:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IAR. Wikipedia is not just a dictionary sure, but it still meant to be a useful reference tool. This is a legitimate topic and a good supporting article for Singlish. Markovich292 06:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with clean-up. —Sengkang 04:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goy Advanced Automobile[edit]

Delete per WP:CORP, vanity, crystal ball - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Daniel Olsen 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP; company seems to only be only four months old.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Casper2k3 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the nominator has it - this is still being run as a part-time project. There being no eadline to meet, wait until there is a product. Guy 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Some P. Erson 22:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AmitDeshwar 02:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - non notable corp. Zero google hits. Just spam, IMO Brian 06:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With no Google hits and no website of their own, we don't even know if this company really exists. wikipediatrix 11:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP Angelbo 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article. Goy Advanced Automobile is an already existing Australian automobile manufacturer verifiable by the Australian Company Number 119 763 674. If anybody is interested, pls go to the Australian Securities and Investment Commision at www.asic.gov.au and search under the National Names Index. The company is in the R&D stage and its works are not available for public viewing until early next year. The official website will be completed by mid Oct - early Nov. It is not speculative. It is definite. It is as valid as any other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia, however young it is. However I admit that this article needs improvement and I will do the cleanup soon. Thank you for your understandingDavidgoymt 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you say work do you mean a prototype, a design on paper or a clay model? Seano1 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the company is not trading, and information about it is confidential, it's hardly "as valid" as "other automobile companies listed in Wikipedia". It's simply not notable. There is no guarantee that the company will ever trade and the protocols of this site mean that crystal-ball gazing, whether by the most reputable of seers (or the least) is a no-no. When the company has achieved notability, an article will be deserving. Millions (if not billions) of properly registered and active companies all over the world do not justify Wikipedia articles because of lack of notability. How much more so one that has not even launched. Top tip: Get a stack of media coverage from reputable (and notable) sources and even without trading, an article would be justified. --Dweller 10:19, 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 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemifacial Spasm Support[edit]

Brilliant website for people with HFS - it's just non-notable. Google shows around 32 sites linking to it [22] Casper2k3 04:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 5,610,977 [23]--TBCTaLk?!? 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. However - getting scared of arguments (& I am on the spam project) - putting the link on the article for this problem would not seem unreasonable? Nigel (Talk) 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though it might be a speedy delete since it is basically just a cut-and-paste job from other website. I put a copyright vio tag on it. Trnj2000 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but add a link to the page from hemifacial spasm per Nigel. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ADD I am the webmaster for the Hemifacial Spasm Association website and I totally disagree with the comment that we are violating copyrights or are "basically just a cut-and-paste" website. The majority of the information on our website is member created, our member's personal experiences dealing with hemifacial spasm. Hemifacial Spasm is a condition, that due to being rare, often goes undiagnosed or mis-diagnosed by the medical community and many individuals find our site and take information from our site to their doctors to aid at arriving at a diagnosis, which obviously is the first step in treatment. Do to the need for kno/wledge and emptional support, our online membership currently has members from 26 different countries. If it is ultimately determined not to include us under "Hemifacial Spasm Support", then we would hope you would provide us as a link under "Hemifacial Spasm". Thanks
  • ADD - Jjoiii I am the webmaster for the Hemifacial Spasm Association website

and after further reflection, I think Nigel's suggestion to add a link to add a link to the page from hemifacial spasm would be more appropriate. Thanks for your consideration.

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

The result was delete patent hoax, and possible attack. Erring on the side of caution in that regard. Guy 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padulla Crime Family[edit]

Contested (by the original author) prod. Competely unsourced, possible attack article. eaolson 04:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - blatant (but not especially funny) joke/hoax article, possible attack. At least it admits it's "based on opinion". My Alt Account 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-admiting hoax article.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. MER-C 08:47, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Mellon University student organizations[edit]

listcruft, also see 1 and 2 Renosecond 05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Carnegie Mellon University, the list isn't that large. Even so, if merged, I suggest making the list into a table and reducing the size of the explanations.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article deliberately split from Carnegie Mellon University due to length. Many organizations need descriptions in order to be relevant. 'Scotch and Soda' for example is definitely clear as to what it is.
  • Delete There's no reason why this page should be on WP. On the Carnegie Mellon University page there should just be a link to a student orgs listing on the Carnegie Mellon Website. None of these groups are notable enough to merit inclusionTrnj2000 17:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trnj2000. This is overkill. --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trnj2000. Deli nk 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ISNOT a collection of links. Arbusto 22:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trnj2000 and Arbusto. -- NORTH talk 08:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree with TBC. Markovich292 06:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, TewfikTalk 18:56, 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 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Denver Senior Honors Seminar[edit]

Appears to be a class syllabus. Not encyclopedic eaolson 05:14, 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 redirect. Merging some of the content is still an option if consensus on the destination talk page allows. Petros471 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television (2nd nomination)[edit]

Although the first nomination was closed recently with a no consensus vote 1, the relisting is due to that the fairly similar and the equal importance of the pages for the logos of Columbia-Tristar Television, Tristar Television ended in a delete vote. On my talk page, the admin that closed the vote told me that I should persue more action, and the deletion review have said it is fine to relist. The original nomination had very few votes, and the precedent was not created. Renosecond 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert the the article's content into a table, and then merge it into Columbia Pictures Television.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert and merge as per TBC but only the 3 or 4 distinct logos - the red/yellow pretzel, the Abstract Torch, maybe the oldest and then the modern version of the lady with lamp logo. We don't need the 3 minor variations on the old lady with lamp logo - thats crufty Bwithh 12:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a bit confused and fairly disapointed of the merge votes. There has already been a precedent established that the Tristar and Columbia-Tristar television logo pages are not notable, so why should this be kept as well? It's about the same importance. Renosecond 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a more crufty topic on Wikipedia than closing TV logos? I could maybe see a gallery of old logos in the Columbia Pictures Television article, but this is ridiculous. Kirjtc2 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any encyclopedic info with Columbia Pictures Television. —tregoweth (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Ogdred 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is informative. Arbusto 22:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Many TV station articles include limited information on old logos. -- NORTH talk 08:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • QuestionThen how come the Screen Gems closing logos, the Viacom closing logos and the MGM logo articles are up? Why not just help me clean the CPT closing logo article?
  • Comment Well, they haven't been proposed for deletion yet, but considering a few articles of the like have already been deleted, this may well be soon. And also, could the voters look at the precedent of the 2 deleted pages and understand that merging really won't help any matters. Renosecond 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as OR/Youtubecruft, some of the images could be merged into the main article per Bwithh. ~ trialsanderrors 17:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just like Paramount Television, why not use the images and put them under the Columbia Pictures Television article as a gallery.
  • Delete merging a table into Columbia Pictures Television per TBC is the best way to preserve any encyclopedic information, TewfikTalk 19:02, 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, although now I'm imagining enraged otters taking over the US Congress. DS 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry otters[edit]

[Check Google hits] Protologism. No evidence this is widely used. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per WP:NEO. Only one Google result, which doesn't even seem to be relevant. Possibly falls under CSD A1.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above. Erechtheus 07:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I get a couple hundred GHits (including stuff like this - see fourth bullet), but nothing relevant. Even if it were referenced, though, this still wouldn't be a notable neologism. Every game has its jargon, and most of it isn't worth cataloguing. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: not even a neologism. sigh. --Storkk 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Thε Halo Θ 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Arbusto 22:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kamber[edit]

nn prof, only 55 unique hits on google [24] and the organization he is a part of only gets 263 unique hits on it's own Renosecond 05:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO; the professor doesn't seem to be regarded as an important expert or figure in his field, and he doesn't seem to have won any major awards or published any major books.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nigel (Talk) 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable Storkk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided -- changed my opinion based on new information outlined below --Storkk 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Arbusto 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the article a bit, and I think he has enough external coverage to be notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He is the newly elected Secrety Genarel of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, that is why he hasn't recieved enough hits yet --A2raya07 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - him being a professor is not notable, but he is the secrety general of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, the sole Assyrian government-body representative. This is really important. Chaldean 23:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Screw it, I withdraw the nomination. Renosecond 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete. In my opinion, the notability of the Assyrian Universal Alliance is in question since it was copied-and-pasted; therefore, I similarly question the notability of this person. -AED 06:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Chaldean. Him holding this position seems accurate and he is therefore notable. Markovich292 06:37, 17 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. (aeropagitica) 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midsouth Allstar Wrestling[edit]

Small time promotion that isn't very known. Wikipedia isn't the place for every small wrestling promotion. RobJ1981 06:08, 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 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Marine Travel[edit]

Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  06:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no questions asked.--Saintlink 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert only. Nigel (Talk) 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no questions asked. --Storkk 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Markovich292 06:38, 17 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 deleted. – [ælfəks] 06:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES CO.[edit]

Contested prod2. Doesn't assert notability, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. --ais523 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. MER-C 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam with haste.--Saintlink 12:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. First sentence even reads like a radio advertisement. Storkk 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To quote Monty Python, "Spam, spam, spam, spam....." Akradecki 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete treet. Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - even if it wasn't spam, it's still the worst-written non-joke article I've ever seen. Stev0 05:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space docking (sex act)[edit]

del urban dictionary is the place for these neosexlogisms invented in multitudes for their shock value. `'mikka (t) 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, this page is fantastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.178.248 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Above edit is IP's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a Question keep, how else are we to find out about these things. it is related to that poo paraphilia as an example. It is ovbiously truthful, as there was that video. Knowledge is power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COLINCOLIN (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Has cite on urban dictionary, where there are multiple definitions. Apparently real term, keep it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.211.51.29 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Factual, because of the reference in The Aristocrats, and the video evidence. If we pull Space Docking, do we pull the Rusty Trombone? Cream Pie? Snowballing? It's a slippery slope. Cop.rock 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id have to agree that we would never have the oppurtunity to discover these things, however rare and deviant they may be, without pages like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.160.45.163 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep- Where else could this information be stored?Ctm18584 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Danny Lilithborne apparently has nothing better to do than look at other people's edit history. If something is notable, than so be it. Don't let the Wikipedia-Nazis delete everything just because they don't like the subject matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.227.115.166 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- "Don't let the Wikipedia-Nazis delete everything just because they don't like the subject matter." True. DrWoody 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- "This is the hottest thing since goatse. Need new pants. [[User::W.Marsh|W.Marsh]] 04:20, 11 September 2001 (UTC)
  • Restated Delete First off let's remain civil, and avoiding references to Nazis. True, Godwin's Law applies, but it does nothing to reach consensus.
Wikipedia has policies for a reason, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Just because something is important to you, does not mean that it is encyclopedic. :Urban Dictionary is generally not considered as reliable as other dictionaries, because it has a lower peer-review standard than Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
The Aristocrats (film) came out in 2005, and the line was a tangential reference even within the film.
And just because I can videotape myself doing something, does not mean it's encyclopedic.
Come back when (and if) the term enters sufficient usage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bold textGet rid of it and the video link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jm gargoyle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per comments made at the top of this debate. How else are we supposed to find out about these things? A simple Google search ought to be able to help you out. I'd be concerned if people are using Wikipedia for sexual ideas. A mention on Urban Dictionary does not make it a real term. -- NORTH talk 09:09, 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 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M Jennings[edit]

Non notable person, unverifiable. Was prodded. Links given in article since proposed deletion are to a new website under construction (with no mention of the name), and a link to a newspaper article that doesn't work. None of the events described in the article can be verified ("Gibraltar Amiga Exhibition" gets zero Google hits. Gibraltar plus Information Channel is too generic: adding Jennings to that search gives very few hits, none about the subject of the article. No references to the legal battle.) Fram 09:31, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thought Shop[edit]

If this group has indeed been around since the 1990s, then they should have done something notable by now. As it stands, this is just a vanity page. Delete. --Modemac 09:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. If the diatribe below doesn't validate your accusation of it being a vanity page, then nothing will. ;-) Onebravemonkey 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the circumstances, pleased to meet you, Modemac. I was actually somewhat surprised at the deletion nomination, as I've contributed other (I'd like to think) valuable content here before; as things stand, being a packrat and annotator of odd Net histories (I still recall the flamewars on Alt.hackers.malicious, among many other places, always careful to avoid involvement, but observing with genuine interest, before Usenet became a complete and total Cesspool, sadly enough...), I would think a Google search of the Thought Shop's hacktivism activities, pro-individual-privacy stance on things and the like (including 'ChristerThon '97, I think it was called - **Correction: it was "Christer Troll 97"**), and/or hitting the wayback machine should yield quite a number of results.

So why haven't *I* added all of those things in? Well, I'm one person, myself, my investement in logging stuff isn't *that* rabid (so if Wikipedia deletes it, no hard feelings, I assure you), and I have a finite amount of time per day, and have to head out for work at the present moment. Time permitting, I'll add more there, if that is worth doing; if not, then I won't bother.

However, as a logical aside, noting the links I cited there this one and this one, if signed laudatory letters from the Founder of the Church of the SubGenius singing their praises for incidents clearly dated by/before 1994 (as those letters are) is not at least some small measure of proof of having done something, then I suppose one could either A) contend they are forgeries/fraudulent -- something easily enough found out by email Reverend Ivan Stang with them -- or B) by the same logic, if commendations from such High Pranksters as the head of the Church of the Subgenius worthless, is the Subgenius page there not also, too, a vanity page? If so, is it a candidate for deletion? I cannot imagine so, unless the grounds are on religious ones.

Actually, something which has come to mind regarding what could be the actual cause for lobbying to delete the entry about the Thought Shop has come to mind: I believe we've met before, Modemac; you & Rev. Stang had a falling out, if memory serves...?

If I am misremembering, *please* correct me -- seriously. However, if I'm not mistaken, and if that *is* the case, then your request for Deletion of the entry more likely than not has a personal motive behind it, I suspect.

Regardless, I bear you no ill-will, and leave it to the judgement of Wikipedia as to whether or not to judge what is, in fact, verifiable historical data, as frivolous and worthy of deletion; sadly, I'm out of time, so can neither continue this commentary nor dig through search engines and the like to provide the information available to substantiate things, beyond what is already there.

Regards,

RTF

Let's see...you're saying I have some sort of grudge against you, and you're worthy of inclusion because Reverend Stang wrote you a letter twelve years ago. Actually, I'd never heard of you until this morning, and based on the article's lack of content it's likely to remain that way. --Modemac 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely where above I stated that you "...have some sort of grudge against" me personally, I'm missing; I also don't see where I made the claim that Stang wrote *me* anything; I merely cited those as demonstrable proof that the group really had been around since the 1990's. If further content is needed, it won't be hard to provide. RTF 6:56am 14 September 2006 EST
"...your request for Deletion of the entry more likely than not has a personal motive behind it, I suspect." --Modemac 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Nigel (Talk) 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 12:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability and verifiability problems abound: per the article, they might have been formed anywhere from 1971 to 1997. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This entry and anything concerning it should be deleted. If this isn't done ASAP, I'll remove it myself. jasonmberry.
Please don't wipe the article before it's time -- that's what the deletion process is for. --Modemac 09:28, 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. Xoloz 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Man's Book[edit]

Does not seem to meet WP:BK, crystal ballery. MER-C 11:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • not to delete i don't see any of crystal ballery. this book is of broad interest for at least 50% of the population. Bkenner 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless Thomas Fink is up for AFD this meets point one of WP:BK. It did indeed get excerpted (serialised seems overblown) in the Times which seems non-trivial, if not multiple. I don't think the crystal ball part of WP:NOT can apply; the book has been printed and if it does get recalled and/or pulped between now and the 28th, that too will be noteworthy and doubtless verifiable. The trivial facts contained in the article are verifiable. Not exactly enthused about the thing, rather advertorial for me, but there's no obvious policy-based reason to delete it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angus McLellan, though an AfD on Thomas Fink and the whole series may be appropriate. TewfikTalk 19:16, 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. Punkmorten 09:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of cathy[edit]

Contested prod/prod2. Article about a fundraising website in aid of a cancer victim. The prod reason was "very worthy but, sadly, not notable", which sums it up well. WP is not for publicising fundraing efforts, however worthy. Prod notice deleted (twice) without comment; requests to discuss on the talk page not taken up. Mr Stephen 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sadly per nom. MER-C 12:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. It's hard not to bite the newbies, when they persist in ignoring messages, acting in a high-handed manner and simply won't communicate. Sigh. --Dweller 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with sympathy, but delete nonetheless. --Storkk 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, except that I thought an article could only be subjected to PROD once. --Metropolitan90 14:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was prod'ed & removed; someone else then prod'ed it (which, strictly, they should not have done) and later the prod was endorsed with a {{prod2}}. Mr Stephen 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost all of this is about radio frequency ablation, the balance fails to assert importance or provide any sources. Guy 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as website does not meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:51, 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 TO DELETE. The raw totals are 10-6 in favor of deletion. That comes pretty close to no consensus as it is. But several of the Delete comments were "per TheronJ", and TheronJ's comment was (originally, and even still after he changed his actual bolded summary) predicated on TransWikiing this to WikiSource, which is not an option. So it's not clear that some of the Delete comments envisioned completely destroying the information in the article as opposed to moving it to WikiSource. So I don't see a clear consensus for deletion. Herostratus 20:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Chart (height 150 - 174cm)[edit]

What it says in the title but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unencyclopedic. Might be accepted at Wikibooks but otherwise, surely this info. is available in numerous places on the web already? -- RHaworth 12:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well, it seems to me that this is useful information in relation to the Body mass index article and so is not indiscriminate. Readers of that article may well be not too keen to do the arithmetic themselves. Perhaps it should be embedded there, however, though as an "appendix" it seems fine to me. There are other articles on WP of this nature and the present one could be developed to the standards of, say, Table of prime factors which seems to be standing the test of time. Thincat 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we're not the place for tables of calculated data or reference numbers. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there are BMI calculators linked from the Body mass index article, a table like this is not linked, as such I think it makes a usful addition to the article. Additionally, the graphical BMI chart contained within the article is not freely licensed. --TimSmall 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transfer to Wikisource Per WP:NOT, "Complete copies of primary sources (including mathematical tables, astronomical tables, or source code) should go into Wikisource." (See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources). This isn't a "complete copy", but the principle is the same - put a complete BMI table in Wikisource and link to it. TheronJ 13:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed recommendation per Night Gyr. TheronJ 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Transwiki -- Wikisource has instituted policy against tables of reference data or calculated numbers. This would not be welcome there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki per TheronJ.-- danntm T C 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing Transwiki option per s:Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes, as pointed out by Night Gyr.-- danntm T C 02:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheronJ. Also BMI is bunk anyway :-) Mine is 25.4, which makes me officially overweight, but my body fat is under 15%. Guy 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BMI is only a guide and has limitations, but is has uses and is well recognised. Snowman 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's well recognised as bunk :-) Anyway, WP:INTERESTING is not policy whereas WP:NOT is. This is a primary source and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Guy 11:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BMI is used by NICE in the UK in their guidelines of medical (and surgical) management of certain conditions.
WP rules are not always as concrete as you suggest; it is a WP policy that any WP rules can be broken, providing that this is done in good faith to improve WP pages. Snowman 12:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT. kingboyk 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Theron. Recury 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheronJ. We most likely have articles on other subjects that include mathematical formulae (like engineering articles, for example), but we don't provide the charts. Body mass index should take care of the topic. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiSource per TheronJ Hello32020 20:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the average wikipedia reader has the intelligence to divide their weight by the square of their height, without a table listing every possible answer. --IslaySolomon 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! Wikipedia exists very much for people who may well be very intelligent but still have difficulty calculating their BMI! But I still say we don't need the article. -- RHaworth 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are indicating that BMI charts are only used to calculate an individual's BMI. BMI charts are also used to quickly see an individuals target weight or target weight range, which is much easier to do with a chart. Snowman 08:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the chart is 100x more useful than some pages. The wikipedia has a page on Mary Poppins so the wiki can have a BMI chart pages, I feel. Snowman 12:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old BMI chart on the BMI page, but no one has suggested that this should be deleted. Snowman 10:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS applies. Guy 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page is in tutorial style and not giving-advice style. Snowman 09:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a free use image version of a BMI chart with appropriate contour lines for the boundaries between categories can be obtained or created. Getting into specific BMI values is a bit indiscriminate, and best left to calculators (though it would be wonderful if there were a way to wikicode such calculators) but a graphical chart with the contour lines of the BMI categories marked is useful and appropriate, and until a free use chart is available, this table is an acceptable alternative. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very easy to make a such a calculator written with java script on a WP page; but users' computers will need to be set to allow javascript actions or else alarm notices will spring up on the screen. Snowman 08:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have uploaded a "free" BMI chart to Image:BMIchart.png which uses WHO's cut-off values. It needs some colors and labels, but it's a start. Woseph 18:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Snowman's comments about the table's use in calculating an ideal target weight range, even though it clearly is not required in calculating one's own BMI. Is potential in adding into main BMI article, and table itself could be tidied to make it more readable in style of forementioned Table of prime factors. Asp 08:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheronJ & WP:WIN, TewfikTalk 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is useful as a quick reference and adds to the article, IMHO InvictaHOG 00:19, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no 'delete' !votes. --ais523 13:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The 85 Ways to Tie a Tie[edit]

This seems a bit suspicious; the interwikis are fake (at least the German one), it reads like an advert, and parts may be copyvio (although I'm not sure about that one). It also seems to be trying to promote the authors. --ais523 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Both seem to have been created and maintained by several users who seem to solely edit pages linked to the Author. If not a one-man vanity crusade, then extremely fishy at least. Onebravemonkey 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • not to delete, we got rid of those interwikis. this book is a bestseller with an unique history being based on scientific papers published in nature and physik A. the article is of importance for everyone interested in fashion and culture. Bkenner 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's hardly unique. There are many books that were written to popularize scientific research. Uncle G 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the interwiki links are correct or not, the book itself is genuine. I know this because I have it right here by the keyboard as I type this. ☺ ISBN 1841155683. As such, I can check the copyright violation. Yes, the entire "Preface" section of this article is copied word-for-word from the book.

    The majority of the article comprises a sample from the book and several quoted book reviews, written in the first person. This isn't an encyclopaedia article on a book. It's what one would expect to see at Amazon. There's probably an encyclopaedia article to write on the various ways to tie a tie. But that would be about the subject, not about the book on the subject. It would also grow, summary style, out of necktie. Uncle G 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The book passes WP:BK for at least having multiple non-trivial reviews by third parties, including "Scientific American" magazine. True, Google gives me only 850 or so general hits, which boils down to only 257 distinct hits, but there are several reviews in this lot beyond the dozens of book sales. There are also several listings of articles based on the book, which is apparently a derivative of knot theory, which in turn also meets WP:BK. Downsides are the article does appear to be an ad, and it lacks sources and verification in the article itself. The real problem I'm having however is in the nomination, which doesn't actually state grounds for deletion. "Seems a bit suspicious"? Reads "like" an advert. "May" be copyvio. One fake Interwiki? I have no idea how to check the Interwiki, that's my bad, but none of the politely-worded commentary shows any failure of WP policy and guidelines. Tychocat 12:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, what seems to have happened is that the article was created, but then an anon went and dumped a load of spurious categories and interwikis on it, making it look a bit worse. I'll change my !vote. --ais523 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, sorry for the weaselly nom. It was one of those cases when I thought that community input was needed to help sort out or delete the article, but couldn't quite put my finger on what was wrong. --ais523 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (nominator's !vote changed) Neutral per comments above. Requires cleanup and NPOVing. --ais523 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, i agree. It's still slightly aquatic on the nose, but the points raised above are valid. Onebravemonkey 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't create this page, but I am one of the authors of the book. It is true that too much material from external sources was added to this page. I have removed this. As an author I am not going to judge if this belongs on Wikipedia, but seeing as it is here I have taken the liberty to prune away excessive material to allow the article to grow more organically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas Fink (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • (!vote changed again) Keep per cleanup. Another triumph for AfD! --ais523 13:36, 13 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 Speedy deleted at authors request. - Longhair 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Jackson (political candidate)[edit]

This article fails WP:NPOV and seemingly by the authors admission WP:AUTO (although the user is probably unaware of it as he seems to be a newbie) but most importantly it is not notable. He is a candidate at the forthcoming Victorian legislative election, 2006 with virtually no chance of being elected. There is precedence for deleting Victorian state election candidates - for example Luke Martin and the subject has done little else to be considered notable, except maybe this [25] but that on its own doesn't merit an article Teiresias84 12:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - candidates aren't notable just for being candidates. They have to win, I believe. --Storkk 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete election spam. A relatively unimportant candidate with little notability outside the election. JPD (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails auto, not notable. Notability seem to be a biggest problem when there's little barrier to entry - for example, virtually anyone can declare themselves a candidate. Andjam 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy, nn-bio, wp is not a campaign stop --Darkfred Talk to me 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not NPOV and vanity. --Bduke 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. QazPlm 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Peta 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE This site has been cleaned up by an editor. All others should desist from petty political comment or bias. As a candidate for the election Mr Jackon deserves equal courtesy with every other candidate. That's democracy folks. If you don't understand this principle then you need to take a course or two in civics or politics. The proposed deletion is unwarranted because the article has now been edited by a professional journalist and editor, who happens to have close knowledge of Jackson. This information is relevant for voters. Jackson is well known to many other editors and journalists. He has been a columnist for a widely distributed periodical.

The article is no longer an autobiography. Vanity items have been edited ruthlessly, and it now conforms to the neutral POV policy. Please stay out of other people's electorates and what you think they need to know for this election, or your personal views on notability. Jackson's profile and recognition in this electorate is very high. Please would you now remove the autobiographical tag. Editor at large.144.138.196.103 10:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. If I wasn't going to vote delete before, I would now having read the rant by the anon above. --Roisterer 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author seems to have given up and has removed most of the article, replacing it with some rubbish. I suggest we speedy it now. Teiresias84 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair 03:46, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Bamboo[edit]

Article about a sort of white magic cult that pretends it can teach its followers supernatural self-defense. Now in all fairness the article attempts to debunk this a bit but all in all, this is a non-notable group. You do find a bit of Google hits but mostly because videos of practitionners have been circulated on the likes of YouTube and because the practitionners have been fairly vocal about their claims. No reliable sources seem to exist on the subject. Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that The Amazing Randi and his Skeptics group sent someone there is a notable occurrence. The widespread dissemination of footage and response also adds to the notability of the group. --Scb steve 13:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:NOT, lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about subject, no awards, no evidence of lasting contributions to the field of martial arts or magic. Google search turns up only 1460 hits for "yellow bamboo"+magic, which boils down to only 321 distinct hits. Google is not the final arbiter of notability, but these hits fail to show more than forum posts, press releases, and other admittedly widespread self-promotions. No question the group exists with verification, no such documentation or verification available for most of claims which fails WP:V. In regards to Scb steve, my best information shows that Randi did not go, a volunteer went instead who admitted he failed to conform to testing conditions agreed-to. Parenthetically, some Australian volunteers later took up the challenge with the following results. Of the four external links listed, three are YB sites, and the fourth is said to be a Bullshido.net investigation of YB claims. This site requires registration to enter. There is no "investigation" per se since this is a forum for martial arts discussion. Several links were passed around in this context, includng the aforementioned YouTube clip of the Australian test. Tychocat 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tychocat. (I know that's intellectually lazy but I wholeheartedly agree with them and there's no reason to repeat everything they said so well.) --Satori Son 22:28, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptive Software[edit]

Corporation fails criteria defined for notability in WP:CORP, as outlined on its talk page. Although the article is vastly better now than before and it has survived a prod, it is still not notable. (More information on the history of the discussion can be found on the creator's talk page) Storkk 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, still an ad, and still vague and unencyclopedic in tone: document management, imaging and workflow software solutions. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paularnhold 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)First, let it be known that I authored this entry. If I'm given time to defend this listing, I can assure you I'll have 2-3 relevant third party articles about the company and product by the end of 2006. I understand that you typically don't allow for an entry to be re-posted, however, I would like you to make an exception in this case.[reply]

Comment: if we have relevant citations by end of 2006, we'll have an article by end of 2006. Currently, it's not (yet) notable. I still haven't seen defense of that anywhere. If an article is recreated, you are correct: that is grounds for speedy deletion.... however, these things aren't done blindly. If an article is created and it's properly sourced, it probably won't be deleted. If it is, there's the Deletion Review that can be invoked.--Storkk 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can keep it when it is notable, TewfikTalk 19:27, 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 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireborn[edit]

Originally proded with the rationale Blatant advert. New, unnotable company. 24 Ghits is dismal for a software company, even in South Africa. The creator of the article was Duff777 (talk · contribs) and the prod was removed by Mcduff777 (talk · contribs). Both users' sole contributions are to this article. The Google search for Wireborn returns 38 Ghits, all useless, and the search for biopedia comes up just as empty. I'm not even sure that company even exists. Even if it does, it is most definitely not meeting WP:CORP Pascal.Tesson 13:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam/vanity. --Storkk 13:20, 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 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Prayer[edit]

Non-notable website, vanity, advertising Wildthing61476 13:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's completely unsourced, and a quick Google search turned up nothing. --Huon 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 8 ghits spelt all as one word. Fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo Θ 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Runch 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go ahead and delete it I am the guy who added it and was not aware of the WP:WEB
  • Delete as per nom. entirely non-notable - only been in existance for less that four weeks --Charlesknight 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

What would need to be done to keep this entry?

  • Comment Unfortuantely, not much, since it appears to fail WP:WEB, which if it did meet would merit inclusion. Wildthing61476 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, that was a super quick response.

Second, I did not do it for advertising purposes I just added the site to a list of social networking sites on another page and though that I was supposed to create a page to go with it.

Third, At what point would it be ok to create a page for this site?

  • Comment Unfortunately, wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Websites must be mainstream, means to be known nationwide, to include a BBS with a hudge number of members, coverage by print media. Otherwise a website is called not noteable in terms of wikipedia. User:Yy-bo 22:34, 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 wasThe nominated article was Speedied as spam from the publisher - David Gerard 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glass books[edit]

Fictional objects from a novel published in August 2006. While the novel is doing rather well (Amazon sales rank ca. 4,500), the Glass Books themselves are not notable enough for their own article, especially as there is a severe lack of reliable sources. It might seem advisable to turn this into an article about the novel, but that would amount to a complete rewrite (besides, I can't do it since there are not that many sources about the novel, either). Thus, delete. Huon 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FICT. Items within a work of fiction should not have their own article if the work itself does not have one. --Metropolitan90 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the book if that article is created, else delete. Possibly self-promotion by the publisher. See this wikimediauk-l post - "A wider online presence is also being created for the book, using Google Earth, Wikipedia, ...". Angela. 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the book if the book gets an article by the end of this AFD (and that's highly questionable unless and until there's third-party evidence anyone cares), else delete - David Gerard 15:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above; should the book make it as notable in itself (rather than beig promoted here by the publisher) then it should be in that article. Personally, I'd have speedied it as, well, spam! --AlisonW 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are in fact entirely correct. I've killed it. - David Gerard 16:58, 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. Punkmorten 09:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar[edit]

This was listed for deletion by 217.121.193.200 but was incomplete with no reason given. However it seems that an earlier decision to delete was never carried out (see the first AFD). Yomanganitalk 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was deleted in April but was recreated later. The content now is not similar to the deleted content, esle I'd have speedied it by now. --Gurubrahma 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article has gone through a considerable amount of improvements here. But major issues have to be addressed here. For example, a google search on the organization this subject had established, have only about three or four unique hits. The closest NPOV website to this organization is this. The organization so far, did not achieve anything notable. Thus, this subject is the founder of a non-notable organization. A google search on his name shows about 500 hits. But there is a problem here. This is quite a common name which produces various different occupations on the same namesake of the subject in the article. And as far as I am aware of, the subject in question only has a few google hits which is consistent to the content of the article. Quite a number of hits also shows non-English websites as well. Considering these factors, it is quite difficult to verify the subject from a reliable source. However, there is no question in my research, that this subject exists and a founder of an organization. But is the subject encyclopedic in nature? That is the key question one must ask. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless anyone can find new evidence, this (vanity?)organization has no achievements or verifiable activities beyond advertising itself, and ditto for the person. Mereda 16:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was voted to be deleted before (and not carried out). The person discussed wrote his own entry. The organisation is not even listed on Wikipedia anymore (as it was deleted). Early 2005 "Rajeev Kumar" went trough alot of articles including, non relevant, links to his organisations page. When all where deleted this page was created. 217.121.193.200 17:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user comments above and pending any establishment of notability. --Antorjal 17:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strongly suggest that the page be protected after deletion to prevent re-creating the article. --Gurubrahma 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google hits are not satisfactory, since his name is quite a common one in India. Also, the users User:Rajeevk, User:Rajeevmass share their first name with the person. Seems to me like a vanity article, since these two have only contributed to the same article. --Ageo020 18:24, 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 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eivaa Games[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable company. MER-C 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Incredibly non-notable, advertising, zero G-hits for "Eivaa Games" outside of Wikipedia. This is about as cut-and-dry as an AfD gets. -- Kicking222 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once they actually release a game, they can have an article. Well, release and have it sell... — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heim (onomastics)[edit]

Looks like a combination of OR, an unencyclopedic mishmash of indiscriminate information, and a recreation of info already at disambiguation pages.  :) Dlohcierekim 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although this article desperately needs cleanup, most of the information is not available elsewhere, as the links on the page all redirect back to this article. Could be useful once organized. - Runch 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Take a look at this RFC, this Med Cabal case, this other Med Cabal case, this user talk page for a currently blocked user, and this category and some of the other articles in it. To make a long story short for anyone who doesn't want to dig through all of that: this page and many, many others like it were created by an editor who spoke little english and wasn't interested in communicating with other community members. For a long time his edits were seen as helpful and valuable, but over the last few months the situation deteriorated as he constantly reverted people's attempts to clean up the messy and confusing pages he created, of which this is one. Finally he was blocked for his refusal to respond to the concerns of others. Right now the consensus is that these articles need drastic clean-up, but should not be deleted. User:Mo-Al and others are beginning to work on some of them, but it will take a long time before they get to them all. Give some people who have some idea what an onomastics article should look like a chance to work on this before nominating it for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for now. The whole batch of pages "improved" by Sheynhertz-Unbayg needs to be handled together. See also section Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Onomastic_pages_created_by_Sheynhertz-Unbayg that explains why fixing the situation will take lot of effort. Pavel Vozenilek 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from the user's blocking admin). Like most of the user's "onomastics" pages, this contains no verifiable info on onomastics. Unfortunately it currently serves as combination of several disambiguation pages, so simply deleting this will not decrease the headache. The page should be split into disambiguation pages for one last name each, then moved to a title for a single disambiguation page, and the indiscriminate collection of information removed. Please join the effort of cleaning up pages like this. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 06:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ONUnicorn and Kusma -- Batamtig 06:07, 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' . Owen× ☎ 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noobs With Pride[edit]

A gaming clan with no real assertion of notability. Admin is of course welcome to speedy this as a non notable group (A7).--Andeh 14:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EmDrive and Emdrive[edit]

Note: please don't forget to sign your vote or comment using ~~~, and don't even think about multivoting! ---CH 01:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonnotable junk science. Please delete. --Pjacobi 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The experimental work appears to be occuring in a relatively open manner, initial experiments appear to show a positive result, the work is attracting interest from several notable sources and has been written up in popular science journals. My personal view is that the theory is wrong, conservation of energy and momentum are maintained, and the positive results so far are measurement error due to small differences between large numbers. BUT as long as the artcile gives fair weight within the wiki policy to both claims and doubts, there is no reason for us to pre-judge the science by removing it from view, and we should continue to reflect the debate. NeilUK 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked up relativity drive and was redirected to EmDrive. I found the article useful. –Gunslinger47 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing is being claimed in this invention that introduces any kind of 'new science', perpepual motion, zero-point energy or other quackery normally present in most junk science. Research appears to be fairly open, and the papers have been sent to a number of people. If the maths is wrong, then let us see why the maths is wrong, and not just dismiss what we do not understand (and I mean that in the strictest sense, not in the 'science does not know everything' sense). -- Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.173.74 (talk • contribs) (the Swindon anon from Swindon, England)
  • Keep. "Junk science" is a content dispute, not a notability criterion or assertion of nonsense. If there are questions of the scientific merit of this drive, then they should be addressed in the article, not simply relegated to the delete bin. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply making a bold claim doesn't add to the world's knowledge. Wikipedia's task is still documenting knowledge, not being a news portal. --Pjacobi 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a useful article regardless of whether the content will hold up to scientific scrutiny. Wikipedia contains other articles with dubious scientific merit like creationism,and Orgone box therapy, yet no one argues the merit of keeping such articles. This article provides infomation on a current scientific hot button. It gives both sides of the argument, it should be kept. - tnorwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.149.179 (talk • contribs) (the ptr.us.xo.net anon near Brooklyn, New York)
  • Keep , Merge and edit out the junk. It appears to be a notable subject, but taken way too seriously by the article. Deli nk 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a front page article of New Scientist. It's not question of whether this article is uselful or not, whether relativity drive is junk science or real science. In wikipedia, it'a all about NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research. Given the New Scientist article, this debate about deletion should be terminated. Vapour
  • Keep. Why not remove articles about cold fusion and Bigfoot. Scientific claims that create this much controversy are important regardless of their validity. 66.195.209.226 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)i55 (the Greensboro anon near Greensboro, NC; possibly bogus registration)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a "scientific claim". This is not generating "this much controversy", because its not controversial, and everyone agrees its junk. It should be deleted because it is not notable. WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there. In particular, there are many many many print magazines out there, and at this time, WP does not have an article about every topic that was ever discussed in a printed magazine. WP does not even have an article about every printed magazine ever published: I (+my parents) have current subscriptions to almost a dozen magazines, which have been in print for 40-50 years, for which there does not even exist a WP overview! Ergo, just because some topic appears in some magazine doesn't mean that the topic is "notable". Its got a lot lot lot farther to go before it becomes notable. I don't want to see WP filling up with drivel, because the drivel is unmaintainable. Its a crank magnet that invites dimwits with too much time on their hands to sap the energy and goodwill of capable WP editors, breeds hostile edit wars, and is generally harmful to the WP camraderie. Such articles are also harmful to WP's reputation as a consistent and accurate source of information. There is no good in this. linas 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who is supposedly against hostility on Wikipedia, your comment seems rather hostile in tone. –Gunslinger47 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, I'm hostile against the hostilists. I really hate them, because they bring out the worst in me. I resent having to show my hate. linas 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This could merit a brief mention on a page called "List Of Prototype Devices That Claim To Break Very Well Established Laws Of Physics", but does not merit its own lengthy article. People are coming out with this nonsense all the time. None of these devices ever makes it to market, because none of them can work. Having a Wikipedia article on each impossible device is unmaintainable. --Strait 04:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It was in New Scientist, but they seem to publish articles on any old claim, regardless of how silly it is. The bottom line is that I don't see any peer-reviewed journal articles on this subject, so I don't think we have any reliable sources. -- SCZenz 06:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    major conferences by major bodies typically peer review papers to be presented at the conference. The article details such a paper, and doesn't detail an additional NASA one citing it with hope LinaMishima 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fake "science" like this is a dime-a-dozen. It is not worthy of an article. JRSpriggs 06:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you remove everything from the article that is unsourced original research, what little remains is not notable. --LambiamTalk 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, surely the article's source is the New Scientist article, the emdrive.com web site, and the online magazine articles listed in the external links section? Or am I confused about terminology here? Shawyer performed original research and published his unsourced original research in the form of his paper and his responses to interviews, and we're documenting those sources? I've done some background reading (WP:NOT) and I've not found anything that disqualifies this article, in my understanding of it. It's not original research (I gather it would be if Shawyer came here and wrote his own article). It's NPoV since we're writing it as a documentation of what Shawyer has claimed, not writing his claims as fact. Etc. Is there a concensus that it has to have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned? I'd say that it should have a peer-reviewed journal article to be mentioned *as fact*, but at least in my contributions, I've tried to document it as a *claim* rather than a *fact*. Alaric 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep cover story of New Scientist 9th September 2006. Regardless of correctness or otherwise, it is most certainly notable and documented. Indeed, if it is pseudoscience, then one with such a strong publicity deserves to be fully documented as such. I notice no-one has yet posted any google scholar search details. Again, better to well-document pseudoscience than to ignore it if that's what this turns out to be. You can't be educated about something that's been ignored. LinaMishima 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    this paper, authored by NASA show they take this idea seriously - they cite the conference paper about this as footnote 71, encouraging further study into this matter. And again, pseudoscience cannot be used as a call for delete - it has been generally agreed that pseudoscience should be covered by wikipedia, as just because it's not real it doesn't mean that no-one wants to read about it. LinaMishima 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (a) The cover story makes it news, not knowledge. So it may be on topic for WikiNews, but nor for Wikipedia. (b) The abstract you cite is about Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, which we already cover well. --Pjacobi 09:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    the paper I cite, if you can actually read it, refers to this subject however, making it relevent. Right there are footnote 71, something they are interested in. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the deletion arguments given above. Flash-in-the-pan media coverage just doesn't matter. Let it die a natural death. Soon enough, it will be replaced by the next FTL/perpetual motion/entropy reversing machine to feed ravenously upon the spotlight like a science-choking weed of stupidity. . . . Anville 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most/all of the arguments here involve notability and notes to the effect (a quote here) "WP should not contain articles on every bogus culture blip out there.". Well it's too late for that, there are fully developed articles on fictional characters introduced in passing in barely-known video games and single songs off of forgotten albums by forgotten bands, and I would argue this is more notable than any of those. Maury 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I may be biased in that I created the article, but the reason I created it was to document Shawyer's claim, to add it to such existing articles as Dean drive, the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, etc. I predict that many people, hearing of the EmDrive from New Scientist or other sources, will come to Wikipedia expecting an unbiased article of the claim and counter-claims. Alaric 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because it's crap science (and it is) doesn't mean it should be deleted. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be junk, but it's well publicised junk, and so I came to Wikipedia looking for the details of why and how. We have articles on perpetual motion devices right back to the magic wheel, discussing the history surrounding their conception and explaining why they don't work - all of which can be done in a verifiable manner. This one is notable because of its news coverage. The argument that we can't maintain an article for every such device that generates such coverage is flawed, because clearly people are willing to maintain this article - and this ain't paper. MartinLing 09:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying the article doesn't need some serious junk removal, just that deleting it is not the right answer to that. MartinLing 09:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: Comparisons were made to Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Alcubierre drive, Krasnikov Tube, but these are subjects discussed in science journals, not in the popular press only (including popular science press). Also please note, that even the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program which was wide open to crazy ideas, had to set a bar, to limit the size of wastepaper basket needed. The EmDrive would fall under the Common Error List and not be accepted. Finally note, that the Dean Drive operating on such a common error is (marginally notable) for the large and continued interest it generated. This is not the case for the EmDrive. --10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    As I have already pointed out, NASA actually are looking into this one, and it is most certainly not on the common error list. It has had a conference paper, and continued interest has been shown by the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. It upsets me to persistantly see people failing to read up fully on the matter before commenting on AfDs. LinaMishima 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that NASA is looking into this. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone important is looking into it. There is a claim by the inventor that people are "interested", but where's the verification from those people? A quick look at the website emdrive.com shows just how much interest there seems to be in the concept. As for the "common error list", if it has to break a law of physics to work, it doesn't work. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if you are an IEEE subscriber or have access to Athens, take a look at this paper. The abstract itself does not detail this, but it's listed within the paper as something to explore. And in this case, they are suggesting that it does not break a law of physics, it's an application of relativity. However all this matters not - if it is real, we cover it, and if it is psuedoscience, major psueoscience is something we should and already do cover! Indeed, that common error list is a case in point - science does not ignore psueodoscience, it gives rational counter arguments to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinaMishima (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This article for me gives the most balanced account of this topic I've found on the web. It's certainly notable, it's not self promotional. There are only facts in this article, it is fact that this guy has made this machine, and it is fact that he has made certain claims about his results. This article gives fair weight to claims and doubts and it is not for any wikipedian to pre-judge the science, we can wait for history to do that.--JohnBirch 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason to delete this article, but I do think it's very important to keep it updated until there has been time for independent testing to establish if the claims are valid. If the claims are shown to be incorrect then we may have an interesting case history of self-deception in the sciences. Otherwise we will have some delightful new physics to examine. Neville Macaulife, [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 (talk • contribs) (an aol proxy)
  • Keep. If we burned books containing what was considered nonsense at the time of publishing we would have never broken what were considered to be the 'laws' of the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.77.90 (talk • contribs) (the rochd3.qld.optusnet.com.au anon from the Brisbane area
  • Comment: I am very disappointed that New Scientist has been publishing this kind of wild-eyed story. The basic problem with the article is seen in this passage: "since it violates well-established principles such as the conservation of momentum. One potential weakness of the theoretical basis given for the EmDrive is that it may not be valid to use the group velocity of a wave in a calculation of the radiation pressure; however, if Shawyer's experimental evidence is indeed valid, then this would appear not to be a problem." The problem with this is that these three considerations do not all carry equal weight! Violation of conservation of momentum is just about the gravest imaginable theoretical objection to any alleged engineering device; this objection makes any alleged "experiment verification" of an apparently small claimed effect (recall the alleged purpose is to adjust spacecraft orbits) extremely suspect. Another major problem with articles like this and comments like some of those above: in many previous cases, inventors looking to attract private capital have made vastly overblown claims of stated interest by Boeing, NASA, etc. Regarding the (now defunct) Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, Marc Millis recently posted a comment in sci.physics.research deprecating some wild claims by John Hutchison anti-gravity fanatics in the Wikipedia which Lina should probably examine. I have often seen amateurs interested in "inventors" react with tremendous enthusiasm to wild claims which sell some glossy magazines but quickly die. For example, the article on Franklin Felber's claims was deleted some time back and not one nay vote was raised in protest. ---CH 02:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, this does not deal with the fact that one cannot educate people on something that one chooses to ignore. It is for this reason that wikipedia must cover psuedoscience. LinaMishima 15:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, but I'm concerned about our ability to educatte people properly, and I'm with CH in being disappointed. The problem is that our "reliable sources," frankly, are failing us; New Scientist keeps publishing "fair and balanced" articles on subjects that should either be either solidly criticized or ignored. The scientific community ignores them, and then these bozos create a controversy to keep the magazine exciting, so our only source is the misleading New Science article. Siiiigh. -- SCZenz 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add some relevant information to my previous comment:
  1. Science fiction author Greg Egan (who happens to be a physicist by training) has just posted (in the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research, which traditionally was devoted to discussions by research physicists but unfortunately is now dominated by enthusiasts with little background in physics) a telling indictment of the New Scientist article on which the article under discussion in this AfD was based in the newsgroup sci.physics.research, which I hope everyone will read forthwith! In particular, note that Egan makes the same points that I, SCZenz, and others have made: in the physics community, New Scientist is increasingly regarded as the scientific analogue of The National Enquirer; contrary to the impression left by the cited article, the so-called EM drive appears to be firmly in the arena of pseudoscience, as suggested by the fact that the "inventor's" claims for this device would appear to violate conservation of momentum,
  2. Several recent New Scientist articles, which in my opinion should never have been published, including the one critiqued by Egan, have been uncritically cited at the WIkipedia. While I understand why several voters here have stated that they feel the article should be kept but neutralized, I feel these voters underestimate the tenacity of the POV-pushing users, and I respectively request that in the near future they spend some time assisting members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience members in trying to neutralize some older problem articles as well as EM drive, which appears very likely to become a new problem article in the physics pages here:
    1. Cover article "Take a leap into hyperspace", New Scientist, 07 January 2006 describes a supposed "rocket driven by quantum gravity", allegedly ascribed to a so-called"Heim quantum theory for space propulsion" (no such theory is known to mainstream physics), and apparently mentions the so-called "EM drive"; see Talk:Heim theory for endless contentious wrangling with (in the first case) a user, Hdeasy (talk · contribs), who publishes fringe papers on Heim theory, which is generally regarded in the physics community as cranky; see also numerous letters suggesting why the editors may be impelled by the low tastes of certain readers to publish such Dreck,
    2. An item in New Scientist, 17 December 2005 apparently mentions a so-called ""negative matter propellantless propulsion"; see for example Talk:Reactionless drive, Talk:Dean drive, Talk:Hutchison effect, Talk:John Hutchison,
    3. An item in New Scientist, 27 October 2001 mentions a so-called "Dark Energy Metric Engineering Exotic Propulsion"; see for example Talk:Harold E. Puthoff, Talk:Stochastic electrodynamics, Talk:Bernard Haisch; see also a review of Haisch's book The God Theory in New Scientist, 03 June 2006, and the "Breaking News" item on Haisch/Rueda from New Scientist, 14 August 2005,
    4. Earlier items apparently described putative "black budget secret government interest" regarding the so-called "Podkletnov effect", which appears to have been greatly overstated; see Talk:Eugene Podkletnov for contentious discussion.
Again, my point is that those voting for us to "to the right thing" and produce articles which describe dubious fringe proposals in WP:NPOV fashion should resolve to get involved themselves in helping Wikpedia users with expertise in advanced physics to keep all these articles in line with WP:NPOV. To a large extent, I feel that users without such expertise need to take the word of those with such expertise about what the mainstream views are, bearing in mind WP:AGF with regard to our fair-mindedness.---CH 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need articles on every perpetual motion machine, nor on every sensationalist New Scientist story. It is a travesty that there even has to be discussion about this sort of nonsense: it should be removable on sight. If the thing turns out to be somehow valid, it can come back when it is properly vindicated (but that would undoubtedly cause a few more ripples anyway).Byrgenwulf 12:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Nn junk science. Perhaps should be added to the list of perpetual motions machines, but not worth a seperate article. Salsb 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This research has not been published in a peer reviewed format, nor has it been independently verified. Given that it seems to violate one of the most fundamental principles of physics, this would constitute an extraordinary claim, which (as the aphorism goes) requires extraordinariy evidence. This extraordinary evidence is currently completely lacking. One of the arguments used to justify keeping it in wikipedia is that it was a cover story in New Scientist. However, we have to keep in mind the different goals of the wikipedia project (encyclopedic in scope, but also in quality) and a science magaizine like New Scientist (profit and increased interest in science). So, although this research project *might* be notable for a science magazine, it is not yet of encyclopedic quality. Edhubbard 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Made the 9 September 2006 cover of New Scientist, an international science magazine with a circulation of over 160,000 and a worldwide readership of over 670,000. With that level of exposure, it deserves coverage in Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of the research—not to be asserted as truth, but to be described, factually and neutrally. By the way, this AfD was announced at WikiProject Rational Skepticism, WikiProject Pseudoscience, and WikiProject Physics, where EmDrive is called "another of those pesky pages". Tim Smith 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sick of New Scientist being brought up in every AfD discussion on some borderline subject...in this ongoing AfD, it is being used to establish the "notability" of a manufacturer of tin-foil hats. Seriously. Frankly, this "EmDrive" is "another of those pesky pages" which pose a grave danger to the integrity of Wikipedia as a real encyclopaedia. And we are not an archive of New Scientist back issues, as far as I know. Byrgenwulf 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our standard for deletion is "notability", not "accuracy". Surely the very size of this AfD vote demonstrates its notability. Also, Comment, from what I've read it is not claiming to defy conservation of energy, as the cavities' q-value decreases sharply in accelerating frames of reference (i.e. energy disapears from the chamber and appears as kinetic energy). On the other hand, while I suppose it to be plausible, I must admit that when I first read it my thoughts were "What? Surely that's a misprint and they meant micro-Newtons per kilowatt!". -- Whitepaw 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After seeing the NewScientist article linked from another website, I instantly came to Wikipedia to try and get the full story, the controversy, etc. It's notable, and even if it isn't accurate, the fact that it's been generating attention is worthy of being included in the encylclopedia. Mark it as a "Current Event" if you will. If the science doesn't work, we'll record the EmDrive as being a failure. If it does work... well... then that'd be awesome. But either way, there needs to be an article. For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work. Fieari 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The number one source suggesting that this is junk science (which is different from pseudo-science) is that it violates the well-established princliple of conservation of energy. This in itself suggests that the claims here would require extraordinary evidence, and as of yet, there is nothing published in reliable, respected, peer-reviewed journals. Not a single article. Just an interview in New Scientist, and a single conference presentation. We have to get away from the idea that New Scientist is in the business of only publishing well-established scientific facts. As there is nothing published yet in favor of this effect, other scientists have not yet been able to evaluate and examine the claims. To refute a claim you need to be able to properly examine it, which scientists cannot do on the basis of a New Scientist article alone. Edhubbard 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it doesn't matter if the article is good science or not. It could be a load of complete horseshit. We don't delete horseshit if it's notable. We have an article on perpetual motion don't we? You'll note that we don't say perpetual motion is possible, but we do have an article on it. That's why I'm voting keep. Because it's NOTABLE, even if it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. It's notable enough that aparently the US goverment has either been bamboozled by it, or is jumping onto the next big thing. Either way, that's pretty notable. And when the results come in, we can either report on how the US government picked up on a peice of junk science, or how they're going to develop it to make spaceships or flying cars or whatever. Either way, the article needs to stay. It's only the content that needs to change. Fieari 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment wasn't so much related to the vote for deletion (although it's relevant there, too) but mostly in reply to your comment "For those of you voting delete because you call it psuedoscience... well... then shouldn't you be able to find sources to refute the claims made in the article? That'd be a service to us all... showing how it doesn't work." The point I was making above is that you are asserting notability based on an idea that has no peer reviewed publications, but then want the nay-sayers to provide the counter-evidence. At this point, the burden of proof is not on the nay-sayers, but rather on the EmDrive proponents, who must provide the extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims... that's how science works. Also, citing something doesn't necessary mean that NASA has been bamboozled. Scientists will often cite competing data or hypothesis to point out how their results contradict the articles they cite. Edhubbard 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand a little on Edhubbard's comment, since this is something that's been bothering me lately. Some things are just nonsense, be they pseudoscience, junk science, or whatever. Many of them are so transparently rubbish that no-one bothers publishing a peer-reviewed, serious article pointing out exactly why they are rubbish, leaving this work to the bloggers, "skeptic sites", etc. However, if the nonsense in question has a Wikipedia article, it too often proves impossible to use the article to "educate" people as to why the subject is nonsense, because there exist no "reliable sources" giving criticism of it, resulting in all criticism being reverted as "original research" or in the name of "NPOV". Even if the criticism added amounts merely to the application of generally well-accepted scientific principles, the "citation needed" tags spring up all over it, and it gets removed eventually, or forms a horrendous drain on whatever poor editor volunteers to shepherd the article). Hence the article ends up being a hagiography of the nonsense, which simply does not do for an encyclopaedia. Since Wikipedia is not a science-related news blog, there is no reason to report on phenomena which have not generated a decent amount of material in the peer-reviewed literature, and hence EmDrive doesn't yet have a place here. Byrgenwulf 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As cover story of New Scientist (circulation 163,000), this is either (i) an example of one of the largest pseudo science scams of the 21st century or (ii) correct. Either way it is a noteworthy topic and is currently the most visible source of a balanced article for those who are sceptical of the claims. 81.79.136.112 07:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This need not be either pseudo-science or correct. It could be a stastical artifact, measurement error, or many other possible factors that haven't been possible to examine yet, since as I noted in my vote for delete above, there are *no* peer reviewed articles on this effect. None. New Scientist is not in the business of providing peer review or scientific examination, and they may be guilty of promoting what turns out to be an honest error (at best). It may turn out be like cold fusion, another seemingly impossible claim that does not generally hold up to closer scientific scrutiny, and which has been rejected by the majority of the scientific community. Until there is at least some sort of peer review of the theory and experiments, we cannot even be sure that there is not a simple math error here (this applies, too, to the comment above by Fieari; how can we evaluate something that has only been "published" in the sciene equivalent of the Enquirer?). Do we need an article in wikipedia for every stastical artifact or poorly controlled experiment that makes it into the pages of New Scientist, without a single peer reviewed article? Edhubbard 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is interesting, in much the same way the Dean_Drive article is. It presents the fact that the science behind the EmDrive is contrary to current scientific principles.Whale September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply because it may be pseudoscience (and if so, one that has convinced a number of goverment agencies) doesn't mean it warrants an automatic delete. Without any clear and obvious proof that a) it does wildly violate laws of physics, and b) no one but an extreme lunatic fringe takes it seriously, it appears to be generating enough interest to warrant an article. That doesn't mean the article has to be an endorsment, just that it should be a source of information for anyone who reads about it and is interested in finding more. Icelight 02:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons (a) If this is a real science, it should be kept. If a pseudoscientist succeeded to convince NASA in importance of his "research" which violates one of the fundamental laws of physics, such an unusual story certainly should be kept. (b) Anything which draws attention of many people deserves an article. Cover story in New Scientist means that lots of people know about this issue, so it deserves to be mentioned on wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist League of Ingria[edit]

Inflammatory manifesto of a non-notable chauvinistic organisation. A curious detail: Russian names such as Ivangorod are deliberately spelled in Finnish. Ghirla -трёп- 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonverifiable. No google hits neither in English nor in Estonian or Finnish. `'mikka (t) 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Have any attempts been made to contact the creator of the article, Tuulispask about his sources? With some rewite and sourcing the article is worth keeping. NeoFreak 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. There's nothing encyclopedic here, no attempt at an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. High probability of being a hoax. - Darwinek 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy Delete. Note the consistent use of "We", making the probability of a hoax very likely. Errabee 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all above.--Pan Gerwazy 08:15, 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 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Net mlm[edit]

Non notable neologism Dweller 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not really a neologism; more of an ad, really. Either way, it should go. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides being an ad, it comes close to being OR and it possibly violates WP:VANITY. The article mentions "Zummie M Nizam" and the article's creator was User:Zummie. Michael Kinyon 11:24, 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. Redirect to the flight is optional. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Valenzuela[edit]

A mechanic involved in the ValuJet Flight 592 disaster, apparently charged with a crime of conspiracy to provide false testimony. Although the ValuJet investigation is obviously noteworthy of inclusion, I don't think that a biography of a mechanic is needed. The alleged crime is not of sufficient notoriety; it's not as if he alone is responsible for downing the ill-fated DC-9, and I do not think he meets WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 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 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French (euphemism)[edit]

I hereby vote for the deletion of this non-encyclopedic, unsourced, unquoted, piece of... and pure nonsense created, and filled, by a single editor User:Brookie. This is not even an article but the pure delirium of a kind of francophobe (lit. "who fears the French") teen watching a comedy kid TV show, the Simpsons, and trying to expand it to an encyclopedic article, without references nor quotes. Everyone can create the same fake "article" and exchange the "French" term by "English" and you have the anglophobe version English (euphemism). Since, just like the French are nicknamed the Frogs, the Brits are named the "Roastbeef" by the French in reference to William Hogarth's "O! The Roast Beef of Old England" painting but you won't find a such "article" in the French wiki. The grudge of the British against the French can be tracked back to their defeat at the 100 Years War whose aftermaths are still living in the English Wikipedia "Result: Costly but decisive French victory", not even WWII nor any other wars are "COSTLY BUT", "costly to win" or "costly to admit"? But there's no need to feed this nonsense any longer. Churchill supported the Fighting French during WWII and the US secretly backed-up the French during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, even though President Jacques Chirac was against the 2003 intervention in Irak, he secretly sent the elite French SAS commandos to support the US in Afghanistan.Cliché Online 13:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is an important subject and is frequently dealt with in language reference books - what an extraordinary rant the above is! BTW I counted at least 14 other registered users contributing to this article - as well as various unregistered users - so to claim that I was the sole contributor (not that that is in any way relevent anyway) is quite wrong. The above user also has not declared his interest as a French Wikipedian ....Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. BTW I have not declared I listen to We Are The Only Friends We Have feat. American Hearts by Piebald, it might be relevant as well. Cliché Online 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create English (euphemism), too, while we're at it. Deli nk 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could see the potential notability of an article on French-English or French-American rivalry in pop culture, (especially after "Freedom Fries," et al.) This is not that article. This article is purely anti-French POV. --Roninbk 19:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A6. I can't even believe this is even pondered being kept. This is a useless list of info, more suitable for urban dictionary. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a dictionary. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article decently needs a POV cleanup. Perhaps it could be merged into British slang, Gay slang, Sexual slang and others respectively. Seano1 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel, Hobbeslover. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete except for its impressive collection of obscenity and insults, this list is absolutely useless. By the way, about the "cheese eating surrender monkeys" quote, the person who had added this in the article probably don't know, the British and Belgians allies were wiped too by the Blitzkrieg Battle of France and therefore are part of the so-called "monkeys" (North remaining allied British, French, Belgian troops departed to England through Dunkerque harbour and South remaining French troops departed to French Algeria through Toulon harbour). It's just the Simpsons, a kids show, with its racist stereotypes (see the German (Üter), the Belgian (Milhouse), the Scottish/Irish (Willie & Seamus) --even the American is portrayed as stupid (Homer) though--) is probably not the most reliable source to create an article on Wikipedia. American director Frank Capra did good documentaries about the Battle of France, they are a bit more educative and definitely recommended for all Simpsons watching ignorant monkeys. Shame On You 13:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete C'est la merde. ~ trialsanderrors 01:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Edmondson[edit]

Kate Edmondson currently doesn't deserve an entry. All she has done is presented two releatively minor shows.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uranusx2006 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September, 2006 (UTC).

  • Keep - MTV VJ, notable for the same reasons that Kayleigh Pearson and Tanya Robinson are: won a talent competition in a national magazine, only doubly notable for her role on MTV UK channels. Driller thriller 18:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is certianly more notable than some of the people here on Wikipedia. Take Bob Johnson (radio) for example. All he has done is produce a relatively minor radio show, and once filled in for a presenter when he was ill. Yet apparently he is 'really notable' even though he only produces a radio show heard by 500,000 people a night. TMF meanwhile broadcasts to an audience of a million people a day, and she is pretty much on it daily. So Keep IMO. Anon Dude 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's an up-and-coming star plus I will keep it updated. Jemthepen 12:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TMF is a free to air station in the UK, and therefore has potentially one of, if not the, largest audience for a music channel in the country. TMF Live, which Kate presents is also a core part of the channel's schedule being both daily, and the only live output produced by TMF UK. I would therefore dispute these are minor shows. Kate is also one of very few on-screen VJs/Presenters employed by the channel, therefore doubly notable. This entry should be retained. Ericmote 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Kate has only 367 google results including namesakes, another reason why it must go.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uranusx2006 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 September, 2006 (UTC).
      • Comment - I get 901 Google hits searching for her... Driller thriller 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As she was featured in a popular culture publication & is a presenter/VJ on the UK's most watched music channel. Alexj2002 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The listing of this article at AfD was never properly completed, I've gone ahead and done that now. This has been dragging along for ages now. Driller thriller 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MTV is a popular network and there presenters will be known to most people who watch it. Seano1 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jacoby[edit]

No claim of notability beyond receiving one award; the award itself seeming oddly non-notable with only 109 Google hits [26]. Delete per WP:BIO. Haakon 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Few enough people are columnists at major newspapers that I think that alone makes him notable.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Columnists at major newspapers are generally notable. As of March 2006, the Boston Globe had a daily circulation of 379,288, which probably ranks within the top 20 in the US. For what it's worth, there are 156,000 google hits for "Jeff Jacoby" + "Boston Globe". Zagalejo 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rudimentary google searching reveals that this stub is expandable. Here is evidence of why he meets the "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers" test of WP:BIO: an issue involving him and the globe that caused a good deal of controversy during the 2000 election cycle [27] , [28] (and plenty more of these in the top pages of my google search); has made public appearances internationally [29] (blog, so not a RS to quote, but helps us know the range of reach); domestically, his columns have been picked up in publications in Denver ([30]), Texas (http://www.initiativefortexas.org/jacoby.html]), and Seattle ([31]), all of which are a fair bit outside the Boston Globe's publishing area. GRBerry 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well-known columnist. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely-read and discussed in New England. Needs cleanup, though.Hornplease 23:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 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 despite sockstuffing the discussion. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cards by Tobi[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable company fails WP:CORP. alphaChimp(talk) 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is spam, isn't it. BTLizard 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious spam --Eileen R 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it - If Wikipedia has articles like 'Sefton Council Elections 2002' then why can't it have articles on national companies? I would consider Cards By Tobi a prominent card company in Ireland Pyroadept 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Possible single purpose account. The above account has only edited Cards by Tobi and this AfD. The fact that we have an article on another subject does not restrict you from nominating that subject for deletion. You are more than welcome to do so if you consider it not to merit inclusion. alphaChimp(talk) 04:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Spam - Cards by Tobi is a genuine company that has been recognised by the Irish Enterprise Board. As a prize winner in the Student Enterprise Awards, Irish students entering the competition in the future would find this, a walkthrough of how the company was established and its processes, an invaluable article to help them succeed in the highly coveted competition. Tbnenagh 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Possible single purpose account (has only edited Cards by Tobi and this AfD). Being recognized by the organization referenced above is not sufficient to satisfy the WP:CORP guideline. Sorry. alphaChimp(talk) 18:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable company, TewfikTalk 19:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Price[edit]

This looks like nothing but a vanity page to me. It also contains plenty of vandalism.Mapetite526 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The bottom section (about a high school student) was the vanity part, perhaps written by an individual who wanted to prove he was some sort of stud. Other than that, the rest of the article is about a football player. Do we have some sort of notability standard for football players? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Footballer who has never played a first-team game in the top 4 divisions in England. Catchpole 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • change to weak keep based on Macclesfield Town career. Catchpole 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has played professionally - he was first choice keeper for Macclesfield Town F.C. for a few years, including when they won promotion to Division Two in 1997-98. Oldelpaso 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not British and have no interest in sports, but I do feel professional teams are non-public and wikipedia should be a universal resource for subjects and groups that are in the public eye, world-renowned or not. If it were a private person, or (say) for a pre-college player, I would vote for deletion, but that doesn't apply here. --Chibiabos 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 17:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldelpaso argument. – Elisson • Talk 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional sportsman. Jcuk 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proper response to a vandalized page is to remove the vandalism not delete the page. Seano1 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Seano1 and User:Oldelpaso's arguments Lordkazan 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. Yamaguchi先生 23:35, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctican dollar[edit]

A so-called "private currency" which seems to be nothing more than a commercial enterprise. Limited Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article itself says it is unofficial currency. Are we in the business of promoting these scams? Non-notable and non-encyclopaedic for me. Delete I@n 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax/garbage. - Runch 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good logic, I've never heard of it so it must be fake. --Kurt 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. Gazpacho 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the manner in which it is written, at the end of the day it's simply advertising or promoting a worthless and meaningless novelty product. I love the line, "Although not the official currency of the continent, the currency may be used if both parties agree". So can Monopoly money. Agent 86 17:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deli nk 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but can you pay for naming a star with these? NawlinWiki 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agent 86. I must say, though, that some of them are damn pretty. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: proof of exsistance Twillimsted 22:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: There are numerous private currencies. But this is very well known among banknote collectors. Here are the evidences
  • Non-notable? I hope this has convinced you it is notable.
  • Advertising or promoting a worthless and meaningless novelty product? I wrote most of it and I obviously do not work for the Antarctica Overseas Exchange Office. Wikipedia has articles of commercial products that are notable within their domains.
  • proof of exsistance? There are pictures and external links.
  • hoax/scam? The article and the official website clearly states that it is not a legal tender. It is what it is. This is not a hoax/scam.
--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Private currencies are notable and should have their own articles. – Zntrip 17:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This particular "private currency" is nothing more than a commercial product, and as such falls under WP:CORP. From what I can gather, it fails the product notability guidelines. - Runch 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:
The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
Therefore, it meets the requirement of WP:CORP --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, you've convinced me of it's notability (articles prove notability, the previous vendors pages did not). However, I do plan on rewriting the first sections of the article, as I feel it currently reads as an advertisement and could be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. - Runch 15:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is still a currency used in Antarctica, even if it is commercial and you don't like it. Also, per Chochopk, it meats WP:CORP. --Kurt 06:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chochopk. I was gonna vote delete, not a real currency. But even if it isn't "real"(nationally, or privatly funded), it is notable, and is a product people are buying. Joe I 06:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joe. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chochopk. Even special, regional, private and fantasy issues are parts of numismatics/notaphily. The "Antarctican dollars" (along with MMM bonds and Jason Islands private issues) are well known amongst banknote collectors - and Wikipedia is just the best place to publish info on its official status.Timur lenk 13:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chochopk; appears to be an actual currency people are buying into. Yamaguchi先生 23:17, 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. Punkmorten 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 25, 1988[edit]

Although I can't find the specific clause in the Manual of Style, I know this sort of article is usually deleted upon sight. Plus, it contains no notable content whatsoever. Runch 16:15, 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. Unsigned comment was discounted. Xoloz 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 Tenths Motorsport[edit]

Non-notable internet forum. No independent, non-trivial, third-party sources available. Recury 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: On the point that ten-tenths is non-notable - this is incorrect. Tenths is one of the biggest internet forums for motorsport alongside such sites as Motorsportforums and Speed channel's forums. Tenths has previously had its own radio show run by Globecast Radio, and has a number of high profile members who obviously give tenths notority - including Bobby Rahal, Martin Haven, Robert Huff and Paul O'Neill just to name a few.
On the point that no third part sources are available - firstly I ask that any decision on this is postponed as the person that created the page is currently unavailable, and it would be unfair not to give him chance to name any sources.
Secondly, the only element that is unsourced is the history to the site. The other sections (eg. the present content of the site) is easily verified just by looking at the site and seeing what is there, a primary source which is therefore undisputable.
Thirdly, I state that internet forums are extremely difficult to find sources for - on the whole the only source can be the site itself. There are many other examples on wikipedia where internet forums are also without independent sources to clarify their origins, and to delete them all for this reason would destroy the category. (for examples, Christian Forums, E-Sangha has no sources as regards history, X-Entertainment has no independent sources - these being three examples from three random selections from the category list) Asp 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles on internet forums on Wikipedia right now because many are created, but many are deleted as well. Almost none of them pass WP:V for the reason you point out: there just aren't many of those kinds of sources available for all but the most popular forums. The policy is pretty clear on this however, saying, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Recury 13:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A full deletion of the entire article would be a severe step for just one section that is presently uncited. Suggest therefore tagging article appropriately until the editor who created it can justify his sources, or alternatively another editor finds a source, as per the WP:V procedure. Asp 15:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be exactly in line with Wikipedia policy. The topic has no independent, non-trivial, third-party sources, so there should not be an article on the topic. Recury 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FromWP:DEL:
Can't verify information in article
 Follow the procedure on Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If that doesn't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted.

{{cleanup-verify}}
This article has not yet been given opportunity to test if it is truly "unverifibiable", by terms of the WP:V : "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}."Asp 18:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? I am following the procedure on WP:V, I've already quoted it twice to you. The burden is on you to find some independent, non-trivial, third-party sources or else it is safe to assume that there aren't any, in which case WP should not have an article on this topic. It isn't that complicated. Recury 18:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I accept that at the moment the article does not have an independent source, it is not safe to assume that there aren't any until it has been listed as unsourced for a reasonable time to allow an editor a chance to provide references. That is why I am proposing that the article is kept but tagged appropriately to give this chance to happen. If that doesn't work, then we can come back here. Asp 18:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD lasts for at least 5 days, that is pretty reasonable. If multiple good sources are found before then, then obviously I'd consider withdrawing the nomination. But like I said, the burden is on you guys. Recury 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete No media mentions, no print mentions, no notability....nothing is verifiable by multiple, independent, reliable, third-party sources. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notability could well be established - a google search does provide many results, famous users exist, above mentioned radio project is a definite media mention, and if article is verified the sites involvement in developing "skins" is a notable feature in itself.
Notability is really only a secondary issue here. The main issue is the verifiability concerns. Recury 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is a major problem with this article in general, however, time should be given to see if verifability can be established - particularly as it is reported above that article creator is unavailable and he will obviously be best placed to add citations if possible. Therefore agree with tagging for cleanup, but only for minimal period (2-4 weeks), and if no progress is made to then relist for deletion.--81.102.182.17 12:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the original author is here or not doesn't matter. If the forum is really as notable as you guys claim then anyone should be able to find good sources for this easily. And (I'm going to go out on another limb here and assume that no one has written a book about your forums) how long does doing a few internet searches take? A few minutes? Half an hour tops if you're slow? Recury 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I see nothing wrong with ten-tenths having an article on wikipedia, but it should make sure that some of the facts are correct in the article. For example it says that ten-tenths was one of the few sites 'approved' to use the new vBulletin software. Which is incorrect, anybody could use the software as long as they paid for it, no 'approval' necessary. Also Craig Antill didn't come up with the idea of co-branding, MotorsportForums.com was co-branding its own forums for approx 9 months before ten-tenths launched its own version and then only when Jelsoft (the makers of vBulletin) included it as a standard software feature. (Declaration: I'm the owner of Motorsport Forums which could be deemed a competitor site thus I'm reluctant to edit the article itself I could be seen not to be neutral in the matter)
  • Delete A week since nomination has seen only the addition of links to its own projects, without any outside sources confirming verifiability. TewfikTalk 19:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween yard[edit]

Tis article has been recreated after an AfD debate held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haunted yard Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skeleton garlands. The author has recreated the article. The same nomination applies: I prodded this article and the author removed the prod, as is their right. Nonetheless it fails on so many levels. The simplest is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The concept of a "Haunted Yard" is simply not a topic, disambiguation page or not, that belongs in any encyclopaedia I have ever come across. Yes, search for it in Google and there are hits, of course there are, but you also get hits for "Yellow Sofa", which we do not have an article on. In other words, Ghits notwithstanding, it is really trivial and deserves to go Note - I copied the wrong orogonal AfD Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. It and the other articles are entirely trivial, and discussion with the creator has failed to establish agreement, so I am placing them here for full peer review and comment. During discussions it has been suggested by another editor that these articles may attract link spam as Halloween approaches Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it now, or a verification of the nominations against WP:WP, trolling and stalking, talk page abuse, may lead to a request for comment. User:Yy-bo 17:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an exact repost of the prior article? Because if it is, then it can be speedied as a repost of properly deleted information. If this is not the case, then count me in to delete. Indrian 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no access to the original text. All I can say is that it is substantially similar, and similarly lacking in anything notable. Since it was the author who speedied it I think I am right that it has to come to AfD, but am happy to be corrected. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually this is now getting complex. The author has overwritten the article with another article substantially different in nature, removing the AfD banner. Please see the edit history. I have reinstated the banner but feel that I need to leave this to an experienced admin to sort out. Thus I will only take further part in this AfD on request of an admin in case an edit or revert war should start. While this may be considered vandalism I do not intend myself to place a warning on their talk page. Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except, that is, to correct the nomination. Well, boy did I mess thatt up! There were quite a few of these. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Fiddle Faddle, i restored to the article version which has been newly created, based on the previous articles. I considered it as vandalism to shorten the article this far. Please see article history. Your deletion nomination refers to the wrong discussion. Guess this is obvious. User:Yy-bo 17:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing called a "Halloween yard." Some people decorate their yards on Halloween, (and how they do so is adequately covered at Halloween) but we don't have an article called Christmas living room for the same reason we shouldn't have one here. That reason is that the concept of a yard during Halloween is not considered seperate enough from the general concept of Halloween in the same way that, say, a Jack O'Lantern is. Recury 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Not considered separate enough" by who? Actually, we do have quite a strong precedent for this, with articles such as Christmas stocking, Christmas card, Christmastime greetings, Wassailing, Mistletoe, Christmas cookies, Christmas cake, Christmas ham, Christmas pudding, Christmas cracker, Twelve-dish Christmas Eve supper, Christmas dinner, Yule log, Secret Santa, Santa Claus parade, Christmas village, Christmas carol, Christmas ornament, Christmas tree, Christmas lights, Christmas pickle, Nativity scene, and American Christmas traditions, just to name a few. (Yes, there are many more.) I don't see anyone rushing to merge these articles into Christmas. I think it's a no-brainer that Halloween lawn displays are a tradition worthy of separate treatment. wikipediatrix 18:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Christmas living room though? Recury 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since that phrase is something you just contrived for the sake of argument, there's no analogy. "Halloween yard" is a well known phenomena (gets 34,300 Google hits. "Christmas living room" is not. (gets 1210 hits). wikipediatrix 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is pretty obvious: Holiday + AreaThatIsDecorated is not a valid topic for an article. The decorations themselves are valid topics, but this is not. Recury 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not describing the yard itself; we're describing the often-elaborate environment constructed in the yard. Zagalejo 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per Recury. Whatever unique content is here can be merged into Halloween. - Ehheh 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, Redirect, close Afd speedily Hmmm... i just merged the yard into halloween traditions, which is also questioned for being a listcruft. No need for an extra article. However, this time i will not add db author. User:Yy-bo 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The decision is not yours to make. Let the AFD run its course. Recury 18:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete despite McGeddons good clean up job it says nothing more than the Halloween page. What worries me is that it will become a product placement page. I fthere is any thing novel here then merge into the halloween article. David D. (Talk) 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halloween_yard&oldid=75533250 Afd was for this version, original article. Can't just shorten an article to nothing, then nominate for Afd. User:Yy-bo 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is quite normal to clean up an article during the AfD to bring it to an acceptable standard. McGeddons version is a lot more likely to survive than your own. What you call nothing I call concise. Concise is good. David D. (Talk) 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per precedent clearly in place with separate articles currently devoted to every conceivable bit of Christmas minutiae in existence (see partial list above). There is plenty of room for expansion of the subject, and the Halloween article is already growing overlong. wikipediatrix 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing said here that wouldn't be said in Halloween traditions. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipediatrix. It a legitimate topic, and the article is definitely expandable. There's a whole industry dedicated to making Halloween decorations to put on your lawn. The term itself enjoys use in several non-trivial sources; I got 31 Lexis-Nexis hits, most of which are relevant. Zagalejo 20:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable and encyclopedic article about a widespread feature seen in many parts of the US at Halloween. "Halloween Yard" gets over 34,000 Google hits. Many millions of dollars are spent yearly by many millions of families to decorate their yards for Halloween. Edison 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Halloween article is already getting to big and this topic is not covered in that article. Seano1 23:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just to see what coherent expansion it can actually get. It should probably eventually be merged into Haunted house, though. --McGeddon 02:01, 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. Punkmorten 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Blood[edit]

Non notable radio host/conspiracy theorist. Peephole 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His radio show is on something called the GCN Network (no wikipedia article) which is a tiny internet/satellite radio broadcaster. Browsing the company's webpage [32] it looks like the whole radio network has ten employees and the website gets about 3000 visits per day. It looks like they have 12 shows so the number of listeners to this guys show is probably miniscule (say 300 per day). That sounds like the equivalent of public access TV. GabrielF 16:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually it does have a wiki Genesis Communications Network but I've put that up for deletion as well. --Peephole 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Fails WP:NOT, WP:BIO, and WP:VAIN. Morton devonshire 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; reads like an ad. --Aaron 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Morton. JoshuaZ 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crufty McCruft bio. Delete per nom, Morton.--Tbeatty 06:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.--MONGO 21:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all notable. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. Crockspot 05:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Rosicrucian 00:32, 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. Punkmorten 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Communications Network[edit]

Non notable radio. Peephole 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Morton devonshire 18:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete browsing the website I see that GCN appears to have all of ten employees, receives 3000 visits per day and transmits about 25GB per month. Lets assume that they broadcast 24 or 48kbps (which seems to be about what most iTunes radio stations broadcast) 25GB * 8 = 200gb/month divided by 30 = 6.66gb per day / 24 = 277mb per hour / 60 = 4629 kb / minute = 77kbps. So at any given time only 1-3 people are listening to this station online. If we assume that every listener listens for one hour than each listener is receiving 86400kb @24kbps and 172800 @48kbps, this would give the station 1150 or 2300 listeners a month. (I'm hoping my assumptions here are correct, please note this is a "back of the envelope" calculation). GabrielF 18:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising Hello32020 20:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if it's given a total rewrite, otherwise delete. GCN has actual radio affiliates, though I'm not sure how many (a couple of few dozen?), so it's a legit US radio network, even if the vast majority of its programming consists of kookery. But the article cannot stand in its current form, as it's just a spam stub. --Aaron 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Could you please provide more information on radio affiliates? I browsed through the GCN website - it looks like they broadcast on satellite and shortwave but I couldn't find any information on actual radio stations that carry GCN. GabrielF 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I couldn't find any affiliate list on the GCN site, but it's SOP for American radio networks to not offer a full affiliate list to the public, as most of the stations that would be on it only carry one or two of the network's shows. I went to some individual show websites instead; here's "The Joe Mazza Show' listing 12 stations [33], the "Bobby Likis Car Clinic" (claims 100+ affiliates plus a slot on Sirius) [34], and of course Alex Jones (listing 42 stations if my quick eyeballing of the page is correct) [35]. These GCN people may fly under the American media/pop culture radar for the most part, but they are out there and have real stations airing their programming. As such, I think the network probably meets WP:N. --Aaron 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly NN. I've had sites more popular than this one. Can't find sources to evaluate the popularity of the radio show, but, what the heck, it's shortwave. My Alt Account 23:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Alt Account and and Jayjg's analysis. JoshuaZ 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Jayjg. Even less notable than the hosts that are on it. --Tbeatty 06:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.--MONGO 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination. Crockspot 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, advertising. Sandy 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete barely a stub, and no evidence of article showing improvement since June. No assertion of notability, not even broadcast radius or listenership. Only connection to notable figures seems to be Alex Jones.--Rosicrucian 00:36, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The famous gangster[edit]

Article claims notability, but searching Google, I've had difficulty pulling up information on this artist. This might be because Slovenian rap is not a huge marketplace, however I still do not feel he meets WP:MUSIC Wildthing61476 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: LOL, I wish we could keep this on its comedy value alone. His "music videos" are just him videotaping stuff from the side of his car while playing 50 Cent music over it. If this is Slovenia's most famous gangster rapper, then he must be Solvenia's only gangster rapper. Seriously though, I think this fails the policy on notability and needs to be deleted. - Runch 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ha ha. Danny Lilithborne 00:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some thoughts from the author:

Wildthing61476 and Runch: you are correct, Slovenian rap is still very small and is still evolving. Mr.B has not yet published his CD, so looking him up on Slovenian web shops will be useless. You mentioned, that there were very little information on Mr.B, i agree with that totally, that is why i started to write this article - i summarised (yes with my own words :) ) his interview for a Slovenian tabloid and included my own interview (most of it is in the article). To get some more info, please try googling for "lordbebo" - without the quotations (lordbebo is a second alias from Mr.B). He went by that nickname when he started, so many people still use that name, and some know him only by that name. He is extremely popular on internet boards, beacouse he had published some of his writings, lyrics and music freely on internet, and boards are the best place for people for exchange toughts on his work, not to mention that 95% of topics you will find were not opened by Mr.B but his fans that copy pasted his works.

Runc said, that his videos are just him driving in a car and playing 50 cent. I partially agree, but only the first two videos are made like that. As i have written, he got some more money for the third video, so semi-proffesional cameras etc. were used. And i don't think he drives around and plays 50 cent in the last one :).

Also if you check the counter on the page where his videos were uploaded, you will see, that it has literally thousands of views (first video - 2227 views, second video - 6052 views and the third one only 550 views, if you do not believe the numbers, please check the links provided in my article!). But these videos are the low quality ones, the quality was reduced, so that these pages can host them. The bigger files are hosted on private servers, but there are no counters, so i cannot say for sure how many downloads. Maby you will think that approximately 9 thousands of views is not much, but it is in my land with only 2 million population.

Also his video and music was published on a DVD and CD, that comes with a computer magazine called Joker ( if i am not mistaken, it is the most popular computer magazine in Slovenia, i will provide the number of subscribers later after i contact the editor of the magazine). If their website could provide excact informations on what is on the dvd i would gladly provide you the proof, but sadly he had fallen under the "misc" section, so there is no explicit mentioning of him on the homepage. I will call my friend, so he can make some screenshots of the dvd, to prove that i am not lying about that. Danny Lilithborne: When you can, please provide some reasons on deleting the article i will try to answer them as best i can :)

Worker21, the writer of the Wikipedia article on Mr.B

I have just recieved a screenshot that my friend made. It was on the runnable CD that was added to the latest computer magazine Joker, the picture can be found here http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5478/gospodarwicale2.jpg (if translated to English: MP3 Gospodar Wiča, that was made by a Slovenian rapper Mr.B). I still have to contact my other friend that has the DVD edition (they come seperately, depends on the type of subsctription), the video is on the DVD. I am still waiting for the response, from the magazine editor, on the number of subscribers for this magazine. If it is necessary i will add these pictures to the article as well

Worker21, author of the article

  • Delete. The artist doesn't meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. It requires at least two albums released on major record labels or a charted hit- neither of these have been achieved. One tabloid interview doesn't meet criteria of multiple non-trivial independent sources. Maybe some other time when he becomes famous and notable, but not now.--Wafulz 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete him because he is a fake and he only made 3 songs which he didn't even seriously think about selling. also the picture of him on the first page of a tabloid has been faked because the text next to it refers to something completely different. i also doubt anybody who is not a member of the mn3njalnik forum knows about him.
  • Comment from author:
I've decided to completely edit my arcticle and mostla gather all proofs that Mr.B is not just some random dude which thinks that it would be really cool to be on Wikipedia :). By proofs i mean scanning the other magazine he appeared in, which i did not know until recently. Thanks to Runch that pointed out a few mistakes i made unintentionally ( the article is titled the famous gangster but shuld be mr.b oufcourse :) ). And i will read the article about musicians on wikipedia more thoroughly.

And a little comment to the anonymous comment: you say he made 3 songs? if i know rap, he only made one song (only one is mentioned in the article, the others will surely be in the next and improved article about mr.b), the rest are from 50 cent. But maby i am mistaken, *rolls eyes* :). Any you say he is only known on one board called mn3njalnik? Use google please, before writing such nonsene.

I will answer other accussations from the dearest anonymous comentator when i return from school :)

Worker21

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punamusta (anarchism)[edit]

del, nonverifiable. A youth wing of equally nonnotable Anarchist League of Ingria allegedly established in 2006. Punamust/punamusta meand "red-black" and gives some google hits, but most irrelevant. `'mikka (t) 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Already voted to deleted Punamust and Richard Nool per A7. --Nishkid64 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy Delete Their claim to be member of the I.A.F. is not found on the official website of the I.A.F. Therefore: A hoax. Errabee 23:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless they agree to make me their leader. My Alt Account 04:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ghirla -трёп- 17:05, 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 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tweedale[edit]

Appears to be a vanity article (created by Rtweedale) of a nn actor; fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. Victoriagirl 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per vanity. Fails WP:BIO and only a few dozen G-hits. --Nishkid64 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. He's got away with this for far too long. BTLizard
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic energy[edit]

opinion/OR/viewpoint not presented as encyclopedic explanation CobaltBlueTony 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedily. --Pjacobi 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is unsalvagable, full of POV and unverified claims. Trnj2000 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. To call it pseudoscience would be overstating it. Espresso Addict 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not scientific, not encyclopedic. User:Yy-bo 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete bollocks. BTLizard 10:14, 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. No mention of critical acclaim or awards for plays and productions sufficient to warrant notability. Wikipedia isn't a bank for notability earning interest over time, it is a record of the process of achieving notability or a description of a notable subsstance, artifact, process, achievement, etc. Awards, prizes, critical notices, etc are required to demonstrate notability for actors/playwrights and none are in evidence here. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schwartz[edit]

non-notable actress, miserably fails the google test by getting only 62 hits when the search criterion was "Emily Schwartz" actress. I vote delete. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Non-notable. --Nishkid64 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Runch 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It should be noted that there are 169 hits for a google search of "Emily Scwartz" playwright. (What's the threshold of hits for notability?) I also am unable to determine the original author of the entry. If it's Ms. Schwartz, then I vote Delete. MichaelCaricofe 03:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added this article. I have no idea if Ms. Schwartz even approves of the article or not, since she has never responded to my e-mail, though I have met her briefly on two occasions. If she were the author of the entry, I don't she would have put "c. 1980" for year of birth, which I put only because I knew her age but not her birthdate. Of all the local playwrights that have had their work put on in Indianapolis, she is the only one I know of to be dubbed a "local genius" by the alternative press, and I concur with that monicker. 169 hits is quite a lot for someone to be tagged "non-notable" and I think we'll hear more form her in the future. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis actress/playwright is non-notable under every measure. Mutually reinforcing Google hits merely indicate that someone is ubiquitious, rather than notable.ArkansasRed 16:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable - at least at this stage in her career. Scottandrewhutchins may be right: we may hear more from her in future, but this is purely crystal ball. Victoriagirl 00:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if anything, the Google results highlight the her lack of notability. She will be welcome to an article when she becomes notable. TewfikTalk 19:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Casino[edit]

Non-notable corporation that does not appear to pass any notability guideline with a spammy writeup. Erechtheus 17:04, 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. Punkmorten 09:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new cow[edit]

Contested prod about a non-notable band. Would be speediable except for the discography section. MER-C 08:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fairly sure it is a hoax. Nothing at all comes up for it in google (UK) and look at the names? Nigel (Talk) 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone can list an unsourced discography. Likely hoax. PJM 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax and/or NN. Storkk 13:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's no hoax. Just because they're unknown - and they do have a website!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HansGlib (talk • contribs) .
  • Note - AFD nomination removed from the log by HansGlib - Yomanganitalk 17:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there are some sources, it should be deleted Trnj2000 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and moooove off Wikipedia. NawlinWiki 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - they do have a website but most of the links go nowhere. If there is a gig list it would be good to see it - I enjoy a wide variety of music! --Nigel (Talk) 18:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the old bandcruft. Guy 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely unsourced, and sources seem impossible to find online NaLaochra 02:36, 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 keep. LOL, I personally think this qualifies for WP:UA. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Community Codec Pack[edit]

This article is about a collection of codecs used by some people in the fansub community. There is, to my knowledge, no information published about it in reliable sources, so the entire article is original research; this is emphasized by the absence of citations or footnotes. The article is also fairly POV in places, with such claims as "According to the feedback received and general observation, it can be reasonably inferred that it is fulfilling its purpose. The affiliated groups receive less playback-related issues and the CCCP is capable of playing back most video media while installing and consuming only a minimal amount of resources" (again, unsourced).

Essentially, CCCP is just a collection of slightly modified, already extant software, so I don't really see any place else for it to be mentioned or for the article to be merged into. There is no real verifiable information to include anywhere else, except potentially that a collection of software named "CCCP" exists.

It seems apparent to me, especially from the lack of even a single edit to the Talk page, and the inclusion of notes about installing the software, that the article is basically being used as a guide to CCCP. Since Wikipedia is not a guide, and the article has no encyclopedic information, I propose that this article be deleted.

-- Slowking Man 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this doesn't appear to be very verifiable, or sufficiently notable - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CCCP is a very widely used codec pack. Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative were similar codec packs nominated for deletion and kept, as they are just as notable. AfD is not where you ask to get articles cleaned up: the CCCP is quite clearly notable, and just because the article contains unsourced POV doesn't mean it should be deleted. If there is unsourced information, delete it! Be bold! Don't delete an article to solve problem's with its content. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The article is most definitely not being used as a "guide for CCCP," as the CCCP has its own, drastically more detailed wiki with a hundred times more information. The article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is, not a replacement for the CCCP wiki. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that supports your assertion that "CCCP is a very widely used codec pack"? Also, the fact that a wiki exists for CCCP doesn't mean the article is not being used in the fashion of a guide. I agree that "[the] article should simply be an overview of what the CCCP is," but it seems to me it's not, in its current state. --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, in many ways it is not. That does not mean it should be deleted though. The most important information that should be on the page is:
  1. What the codec pack supports.
  2. Why the codec pack exists. For example one could state (and use the project page itself as a source here) that the codec pack was created to standardize playback of video files, so that instead of having to deal with different playback setups on every computer, one could simply install this one pack and be sure it would work with all video designed to work under the pack. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free-Codecs and BetaNews, two of the unofficial distributors of the pack, have their combined number of downloads of the newest version exceeding 65,000. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In spite of its name it is not a "codec pack" but a playback solution used by numerous groups involved in movie encoding. It is the recommended playback solution by the Matroska team and by tens of release groups in the Anime community, and used by tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of users. As the current encoding and playback standard as well as being the standard playback solution for Matroska playback, it does deserve its place. The article documents a widespread standard playback solution. As such, deletion would be wrong wrong, and if anything needs to be done about the article it should be edited instead. Mikademus 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, can you provide reliable sources that support your assertions? --Slowking Man 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 10 second google news search got me this. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that it is the recommended playback solution of Matroska, the developers of the .MKV media container format, strike you as "significant" enough? Mikademus 07:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I'm curious as to what constitutes a reliable source. It's rare for free software to be reviewed by "reliable" third parties because the purpose of such reviews is to help the consumer make an informed decision with their money. Numerous software articles on Wikipedia do not cite sources other than their homepage. If the homepage is not considered reliable then these other software articles should be deleted as well, or other sources should be found. (e.g. the integral component of CCCP, ffdshow). POV is not a legitimate reason to delete in my opinion, because it is something that can be fixed. The only reason I can see to delete this article is if the sources from which the article is composed are deemed unreliable, hence making it hopeless to reform. --Kamasutra 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite notable, recommend by many fansub groups and AnimeSuki. Doesn't appear to violate WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NOR. The only real problem I see is that it is base entirely on primary sources and needs secondary sources to balance it. It could also include information on its affects on the fansubbing community and what criticism it has received, if any. But those alone aren't enough to delete this article. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum One of the reasons I missed in the original rational is that the article is a manual or guide. But I don't see how this can be interpreted as such. The page doesn't give any instructions on how to download, install, configure, or use the software. What it does is introduce the subject, give a brief history, explain why it was created, and gives a list of features and what other components make up the pack. None of which constitutes a guide. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fairly notable codec pack. Maybe the article needs to be wikified more, but not deleted. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strikes me as notable. I don't even use it (or windows), but I'm aware of it and I see the justification for the claims that it's better than most other codec packs. I'm not the one to fix this article, but I strongly suspect it can be brought in compliance with WP:NPOV etc. My Alt Account 04:16, 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. Punkmorten 09:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nool[edit]

del a nonnotable Estonian drummer. Verifiability problem. The claimed discography nonverifiable; at least it hardly can be credited to him. Provided links give only cursory remarks. Estonian wikipedia does not know it. `'mikka (t) 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with CSD A7 and PROD in operation it's a long time since I've seen a subject which scores the coveted zero Google hits, but "Richard Nool" drummer -wikipedia gets just that. Guy 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO and only a few hits on Google. Tag as {{db-bio}}. --Nishkid64 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. - Darwinek 17:28, 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. I commend Mikka on his restraint for not deleting this outright. I am a bit more rouge. Monograph by single purpose account, canonical spam, a festering sore on the face of the project. And those were its good points... Guy 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naviscreen[edit]

Blatant spam  — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) —  17:23, 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 05:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punamust[edit]

  • del nonnotable estonian anarchist organization. Verifiability problems. Punamust/punamusta meand "red-black" and gives some google hits, but most irrelevant. `'mikka (t) 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mikka reads Estonian better than I do, I'm guessing; the English sources give no evidence of significance at all that I can see. Guy 19:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Tag as {{db-group}} would be appropriate here I think. --Nishkid64 19:52, 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 05:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summer School Wust[edit]

Looks like nothing more than a student exchange program. Delete exolon 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete absent evidence of significance, in the form of multiple non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Is this on de:? Guy 19:22, 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 as lacking sufficient context. This does not seem to be connected to D20, or at least not in any proper sense. Guy 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D20 twilight[edit]

The article appears to be a list of roll-playing game rules. Wikipedia is not a rule book; not enough context to determine what the article is about; copyright notice at the bottom suggests the article is a copyvio; possible vanity; formerly prodded, but removed. Deli nk 17:57, 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 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budge Hall[edit]

Non-notable college dorm. Vanity. Delete. Deli nk 18:01, 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 both. Xoloz 16:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstonworth Rovers and Barnstonworth Rovers F.C.[edit]

Non-notable local amateur sports club. Possible vanity article. Deli nk 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • *This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dodge 03:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Writing an article in the first person will tend to give the game away. BTLizard 10:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet The articles are vanity-style, very badly written but this is not automatic grounds for deletion. The rules in WP:CORP for English football teams don't translate well across the Atlantic so I'd like to know what agreed criteria for notability are there for American sports teams? Also, if this fails for inclusion then so does every other article listed in Cosmopolitan Soccer League, and they should be AfD'd as well. Qwghlm 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Nigel (Talk) 12:47, 21 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 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Justin (R.J.) Sarna[edit]

unverified, unsourced bio; prod deleted w/o discussion, no sources added - CobaltBlueTony 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. I can't confirm anything here, under the real name or any of the listed stage names. Can't find anything about the comedy troupe, either. Fan-1967 18:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listed citations to the Chicago Sun-Times do not appear to be there when searching suntimes.com. Starting to look like a hoax. Fan-1967 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's worth noting that the citations to the Sun-Times claim page numbers of C5 and C10. The Sun-Times is a tabloid, and does not have separate lettered sections, so those are not even possible page numbers. Fan-1967 21:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard Richard Sarna's programme several times on both listening via the web during my frequent vacations to Italy, and as a patron of Roscoes I am very familiar with this talented and hilarious individual. It saddens me that somebody's jealousy of his talents would cause them to doubt his existence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.50 (talk • contribs)
    • The argument was over when you claimed jealousy. Delete as hoax. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above IP has no non-vandal edits outside this AFD. Fan-1967 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stupid hoax, nearly every assertion is impossible to verify. My Alt Account 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax: famed US comedy groups from the 21st century usually have some Google hits at least. Fram 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are we sure that this "Fan 1967" is a real person and not a rival of R.J. Sarna and his comedy act? I mean, does it seem logical that if they didn't have a vested interest in the personal demise of Mr. Sarna that they would care so much and go to such great lengths to discredit him?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.107.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Furthermore this Danny Litheborne is an individual who suffers from multiple personallity disorders and still watches Sailor Moon. He additionally believes in the existence of hte clearly fictitious sailor crystals, which were a concept in the CHILDREN'S "SAILOR MOON" FRANCHISE, and additionally claims to read spellbooks. I'm not sure if we want somebody who obviously suffers from such delusional fantasy to be contributing or even offering his opinions, clearly founded in lunacy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.107.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Note The above IP also vandalized the discussion ([37]), and left me a note ([38]). Can we close this thing already? Seems pretty clear. Fan-1967 01:19, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Howe[edit]

non-notable, claim mostly by association with notable writers and one story published in Slate Crunch 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just adding to my nomination, while he's published a few minor stories here and there, his own website does not even characterize him as a prominent writer. His main claim to fame appears to be attending the Clarion Workshop and associating with other more notable writers, either because they went to school together or were published in the same publications. I don't see him meeting the criteria for a notable author. Crunch 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's more notable than, say, Surskit. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll side with keep on this one, and I ditto Pink's comment. Hello32020 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whether or not Pokemon characters merit articles seems to be another matter. Crunch 23:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability--Peta 06:10, 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 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable Multimedia[edit]

probably OR, merge with multimedia if appreciate Yy-bo 19:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable multimedia encompasses not just software, but new processes and also applications. See Talk:Modifiable_Multimedia. Endless blue 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is it an established concept? Otherwise it is WP:OR. Multimedia history does not belong to this article anyway. User:Yy-bo 21:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It is an established concept, although not in name. The concept of modifiable multimedia is mentioned in various ways by practitioners, researchers, companies, etc. Following are a few links.

link company profile mentioning specialty of making multimedia "modifiable"

patent description related to object oriented software designed to make multimedia modifiable

Flash 8 documentation page discussing modifiable appearance of multimedia application navigation

modifiable behaviors in C++ that permit programming interface change capability

This concept is really well embedded in the interactive world, it just hasn't been articulated. I don't consider it to be original as a concept. The history discussion was meant to provide context. I was working on additional content such as example, and more specific methods to add to the article. Endless blue 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I had a similar problem on political correctness (adding examples). Unless they are really established, WP:NOR treats them as original research. Your work looks based on informative intention. User:Yy-bo 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment: I just read the article and the discussion on political correctness and I'm not sure how the issues there relate here. I didn't read any comments about how well established that term was - most of the commentary revolved around the controversey of the article. Could you elaborate? I'm new to Wikipedia and sort of new to all this but trying to catch on quickly. Thanks! Endless blue 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They do not directly relate here. They (various editors) were not accepting examples for political correctness. The requirement was: The term must have been established for years. It is a while ago. By the way see the talk page of Modifiable Multimedia; probably there is another article which alread covers the concept.
      • You say you are new. Good, welcome. Don't mind a deletion nomination being something absolute. It is always possible to argue. Have a look WP, Wikipedia:Village_pump if you have not already. Sorry if the article looks a bit WP:NOR original research to me. It is also possible to withdraw a deletion vote. However there are various attempts to create articles about obscure concepts. User:Yy-bo 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 

Text from the discussion on talk page

This page is describing a form of end-user innovated collaborative software that is neither unique to multimedia nor requires multiple forms of media. I don't see why it warrants a separate page. I suggest that anything unique on this subject is moved to the page where the broader technology or unique discipline is presented. Oicumayberight 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifiable multimedia is more than a form of software - it also describes a framework by which multimedia content can be structured so that its modifiable and thus more affordable. Part of this framework approach does involve the use of specific types of software, however, it doesn't have to only be collaborative software. In many cases, automated software processes will drive data to multimedia files (e.g., news title, stock tickers, weather, GIS locations) and cause updates without human intervention.

Modifiable multimedia also encompasses the use of different styles interface design, storyline planning, concept development, workflow and planning for copywriting than in traditional multimedia concepting and production. For example, a multimedia presentation that can be modified also requires that the authors plan navigation differently and identify cases where that navigation might also need to change based on content that is removed/inserted. Endless blue 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a different level of activity here, it probably falls under the category of Dynamic web content. If the article suggests that dynamic media content is used in much broader applications than online media, then it should be under the category of electronic media or dynamic data-driven media. In any case, unless the level of interactive is only possible with multiple forms of media, it shouldn't be considered part of a multimedia subject. The multimedia discipline is taking into consideration the skills and technologies of combining multiple forms of content, instead of the technology associated with the separate content forms. 75.80.181.224 05:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about your suggestions and I still think that there are important distinctions in modifiable multimedia that make it a poor fit into one of those categories. Modifiable multimedia does not have to be web content. It could be a multimedia presentation playing on a Plasma screen in a corporate office that changes over time, or it could be a a CD ROM with a multimedia (text, images, animations) interface whose data (images, text) can update via web services like SOAP. Electronic media on the other hand seems much broader and nebulous. It covers more than just multimedia, and the concept of modifiability is subsumed in it, however its important to note that while modifiable web pages that are not multimedia have been possible since the advent of the web, modifiable multimedia interfaces are truly a new thing made possible with continuing advanceds in Flash, Java, etc. I would also suggest we consolidate discussion in the article deletion thread: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Modifiable_Multimedia. Endless blue 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Since Merge[edit]

I understand that what is called modifiable multimedia describes a level of interactivity unavailable in previous years. There is always going to be emerging technologies that have big impacts on electronic media, static media, and the media ecology. However, it's not that often that technology changes enough to warrant a new term. Technological buzzwords are short lived as technology is constantly developing. Unless there is new hardware (like the router), new formats (like digital), revolutionary concepts (like DOS, OOP, GUI), or revolutionary languages (like Java), there usually isn't enough change in technology to justify a new term. Excessive variations of terms and excessive definitions of terms for existing technology only makes it hard to grasp the broader more important breakthroughs. The risk is that these buzzwords catch on before there meaning is fully understood. This only contributes to the vagueness. The lack of consensus surrounding the full meaning of a term can lead to a lack of collaboration in utilizing the technology the term is describing.

I did a google search on "modifiable multimedia". The full term that came up was "User-modifiable Multimedia Applications". My suggestion is to find the best application of what is called modifiable multimedia and add the relevant information to the pages where that application is being discussed. There is already a page on User innovation. If it's not user innovation that's important, then it must be either user-personalized or data-driven that makes it important. If it's not the end user who is modifying the content, it's nothing special because most online content is modifiable to some degree. Oicumayberight 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is still an important distinction though that wasn't covered by your quick search. Modifiable multimedia can be "user modifiable", or it can be modifiable by third parties or administrators (e.g., teachers who want to reuse a multimedia template where they can upload assessment materials, videos, etc. and create multimedia lessons tailored for specific classes or even topics). What you're describing is related more to context driven changes in multimedia - e.g., allowing a user to select his/her favorite music track while browsing a site. That is different that administrator-modifiable-multimedia. Both forms of modifiability are subsumed under "modifiable multimedia". I want to stress again that the main reason this concept is significant is that it makes multimedia interactions more affordable to deploy, thus opening up new possibilities in education, marketing, e-commerce, customer service, and so forth. What you say taht "most online content is modifiable", it should be pointed out again that multimedia does not need to be online and furthermore, multimedia is more difficult to update and make data-driven than text or alphanumeric content like an HTML file. Really this concept covers all of the articles (and more) that you list above. Endless blue 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I emphasize again that user innovation is a higher level of interactivity, which seems to be the significance of modifiable-multimedia. Even if the page remains and is linked to all relative pages, user innovation and interactivity will be researched before a term such as modifiable-multimedia by those most interested. A google search shows 74,600 hits on the phrase "user innovation" in quotation marks compared to 92 hits under "modifiable multimedia". Rather than use a vague term to promote such an important concept, it's better to use more popular terms to support the concept if it's that important. The best way to do this is link the concepts as with the most popular terms to each other. This is why I suggest you put them on the pages to which they are relevant. Noticed when you added the term to the Multimedia page, I replaced it with user-innovation, the more popular term for the enhanced level of interactivity you described. Like wise, you could add multimedia to the user innovation page and explain how multimedia can be user innovated (modifiable) on that page. You could even create a new page and call it user innovated multimedia that would probably be received better. It's comparing the words "modifiable" with "user innovated" that makes me uneasy about the term. Modifiable is so broad, it could dilute the importance of user innovation in this concept. You may even get more hits on the Polar Design web page with the term user innovation in the subtext. ;) Oicumayberight 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: To sumnarize the arguments so far: (1) this is original research, or (2) the matererial would best be presented by being written into other articles, such as User innovation and others articles, the refutation being that (1) it's not original research and (2) the material is better presented in this article. The raw "vote" total to this point is 3-1 in favor of Delete. Herostratus 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the title is a self-admitted neologism and the content is thus inherently OR. Guy 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it's an established area defined by other sources, it's OR for us to specify it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per Guy My Alt Account 04:21, 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. Punkmorten 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Mall (Brownsville, Texas)[edit]

This article should be deleted based on the fact it is non notable in itself the mall is not unique from the innumerable other malls in the United States, Texas or the world. Furthermore it is already included in the Brownsville, Texas article which in my opinion would make a merge a moot subject. James E. Zavaleta T C E 18:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT a store directory. No evidence that this mall is distinct from the tens of thousands of other malls in comparable sized towns across the world. My area has several this size, pretty much all generic. Guy 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzGGuy Hello32020 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another non-notable mall indistinguishable from thousands of others. Valrith 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the streams of unnotable buildings seems to be on the rise on wikipedia. Arbusto 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls are in the business of renting retail space, mostly to chain stores. WP:CORP is thus the relevant standard. No evidence or assertion of meeting any of the criteria therein. GRBerry 01:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notablity. BTLizard 10:25, 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 snowball delete: per user:Mackan: promotion vehicle; abuse of wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nowadays[edit]

  • del shameless promo of a band debuted in september 2006. `'mikka (t) 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although one band member is pretty famous (Gary Brolsma). They are relatively new anyway. If they score big then re-create the article later. --Nishkid64 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nishkid Hello32020 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nishkid Mackan 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shameless promo"? Please. An article DESCRIBES something, it does not ADVERTISE it. People on Wikipedia really need to get over that. Nevertheless, although this does meet WP:MUSIC by having a notable member, I suggest a Merge/Re-Direct until there's more press on the band to cite. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it's supposed to do, yes. But when the actual homepage of the new Numa Numa brags on it's press page that Wikipedia articles have been written on new Numa Numa and the entry on this band, it becomes obvious that some people try and use Wikipedia as means of promoting their products. Mackan 15:42, 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. Punkmorten 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosado[edit]

Vanity article, advertising and full of corporate speak. Prod was removed (incidentally on the 5th day of the prod) Wildthing61476 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also, 1,100 G-hits, probably many of which are irrelevant. --Nishkid64 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to the remarks above, the wholething is just a cut and paste fom the corporate web site and is thus a copyvio. -- Whpq 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to fail WP:CORP, but even if I'm wrong, the current article text is completely unsalvageable, so, no loss. My Alt Account 04:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - egregious piece of spam created by somebody calling themselves by the same name as the article and having no other contributions. BTLizard 10:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • blah... revolutionary...blah delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Miyadai[edit]

Unsourced, no claim to notability. Prod was disputed. Septentrionalis 19:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Non-notable sociologist and assistant professor. --Nishkid64 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Hello32020 20:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/verify probably noteable and it is not yet prooven. Delete later on if not noteable. New article. User:Yy-bo 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found at 3 English references to him with a quick Google search.[39][40][41] Seano1 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has an extensive article in ja wiki, and if you browse through it he's written a lot of stuff. ColourBurst 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpvf 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Still not a real assertion of notability unless the redlinks are notable people;
  1. It may be a "new article", but it's not a new user, and the old user was blocked for a time, for, among other things, creating articles on mathematicians while inserting references to their importance in mathematical articles, where that importance was unverified (to User:Yy-bo)
  2. The creator was previously banned from the ja wiki and blocked for a period of time here; if it's his article there, it won't be there for long. (to User:ColourBurst).
I doubt that it is the same user. The ja article has been around since 2004, and has seen a lot of different editors. Neier 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, that being said, he may be notable, although the article doesn't have sources even for the marginal claims of notability made. (And I was the {{prod}}der.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ja wikipedia and 70 books at Amazon.jp -- Given that the en article is less than two days old, I suspect it will gather its sources in due time. Neier 14:58, 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 deleted after blanking by author. Punkmorten 09:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fill In The Blankie[edit]

Advertising for nonnotable business NawlinWiki 19:25, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Massacre on Queens Boulevard[edit]

Non-notable wrestling event, several other ECW events that were similar to this were deleted for the same reason. TJ Spyke 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 569 Google hits as well. --Nishkid64 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, TewfikTalk 19:56, 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. Punkmorten 09:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daywing[edit]

Unpublished character, no appearances, probable fan creation CovenantD 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Even though he not a real character he would be very helpful. He is available 24-7 no 10-7. More info to come.". --Nishkid64 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a real character? This is barely even readable - total garbage. - Runch 21:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree that this seems to be made up. Would like to add that my Pac-Man fanfic is much better quality than this article. My Alt Account 04:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research (fan material). And I've produced better fan material after a good sneeze. - CNichols 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete border case of speediable nonsense. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I know I created this name years ago as an email id, just to have a different sounding id. Too bad there's no copyright laws on Ids. Yup, blow this article away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daywing (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. (aeropagitica) 22:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwin & Company[edit]

non-notability, SDC 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While, there are several links to this article, every link apparently refers to an old baseball card manufacturer. None of the links are intended for this executive search firm, which appears to be a very small operation. SDC 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:CORP. Doesn't seem to be notable. --Nishkid64 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failure of WP:CORP, TewfikTalk 19:59, 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. Punkmorten 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zak[edit]

Delete. As I said when I prod-ded it: Notability of this subject is in question. Google search for "Michael Zak" brings up about 15 relevant mentions in the first 50 results. Author of article has also been inserting somewhat inflammatory remarks about politics and the Civil War into other articles. Regardless, I can't see how this subject meets the guidelines of WP:BIO. ... discospinster talk 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Nishkid64 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not WP:LAYOUT, some passages not encyclopedic. User:Yy-bo 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also article is nothing but bias. Author's other edits are similarly biased. NawlinWiki 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and in accordance with WP:BIO. --Charlesknight 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like someone typed up a campaign pamphlet. --Eileen R 02:09, 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 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Near-visible EMR[edit]

Page is about a small frequency range of electromagnetic radiation. The information is already covered by several articles on the subject, and this article does little to assert the importance of this particlar distinction.

Hmm the content of this article could have been included into other articles. However, it is exclusively based on the science/astrophysics definition, not addressing the effects or usage of a certain wavelength range. Using the other articles as link target is just not really suitable for some technical articles. The reader already knows the operate using light. But does not want to browse the long EMR explanation. I have tried to address some experts on the subject. User:Yy-bo 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can pipelink to the appropriate section in Electromagnetic spectrum (once written). There is no need for a reader to have to browse through the whole article. Alternatively, if you are only refering to NIR then you could pipelink to the appropriate section in infrared. A better use of your time, I think, would be to improve on these article rather than creating a spinoff. David D. (Talk) 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which other articles cover the astrophysics concept? Visible light is also about a very narrow range of electromagnetic radiation, which is already covered by other articles. — Omegatron 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --McGeddon 02:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please could an admin look at this author's contributions and guide their hand towards the creation and editing of valuable, notable and great articles. Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Information You need to file a seperate request for comment. Your trolling does not belong here. User:Yy-bo 19:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not trolling, you have a genuine problem making understandable statements, though to your credit you've been doing a lot better recently than you used to. I should also point out that the last request for comment you made was turned against you, and you completely ignored it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I am not trolling him. He has the potential, when he chooses, to create excellence. All I hope for is that guidance will be given towards achieving it. However this article is not an excellent one. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first sentence of the article states, Near-visible EMR is the frequency range from far-infrared to far-utraviolet. This looks wrong right off the bat. Shouldn't near-visible EMR include only the frequencies of NIR (700 to 1000 nm) and NUV (380–200 nm)? What does this article add to wikipedia that is not already covered in ultraviolet and infrared? The desired goal or perspective of this article is not clear to me. I feel frustrated that I have to vote this way as User:Yy-bo has put in a lot of effort here. But to survive it needs to be relevant and correct. At present it is neither, I'm sorry, but quality does matter. David D. (Talk) 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as recommended by Runch, above. The Photon 03:39, 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 a1. NawlinWiki 21:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small breasts pornography[edit]

Empty article with no revision history Orayzio 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erm...how come it says you made the article? Speedy delete per A3. --Nishkid64 21:01, 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. Petros471 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Nu[edit]

Another user prodded this, and made a link to the non-existent AfD page. Leaving a note on their user page so they can comment on why they want this to be deleted. --Nishkid64 21:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance!

  • Reason for Deletion: This page unfortunately appears to meet the Wikipedia standard of an "attack page" on Alpha Phi Alpha. The creator, NinjaNubian (also known as Mykungfu and Bobbydoop), created the page after being temporarily blocked several times under several IPs from editing and reverting on Alpha Phi Alpha. The page on its face is an attack against Alpha Phi Alpha, using as its basis mostly unreliable sourcing [42][43][44]. WikiPedia defines defines an "attack page" as:
  1. Attack pages. Articles that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

The meat of this article choses to attack as follows, with what appears to be a sharply non-neutral POV:

First black fraternity[edit]

Sigma pi phi founded in 1904 makes the true claim of being the oldest black surviving fraternity [45]. There have been claims Alpha Phi Alpha is the first inter-collegiate black fraternity [46] though this has been in dispute. This claim is argued by the fact that it was founded in December of 1906 [47]. Three years after the founding of Alpha Kappa Nu. [48] This lost historical fact and controversy continues on to till this day. [49] Many websites will unwittingly refer to their organization as being the first inter-collegiate black fraternity. Sigma Pi Phi is the oldest documented surviving black fraternity. Proven by research that has not been disputed, Alpha Kappa Nu is the first black fraternity as well as the first black inter-collegiate fraternity shown by research.


205.188.116.68 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing an attack page template on this page, but I will refrain from blanking or editing it because I do not wish to enter a nonsensical revert and edit war with its author. Please advise, and no, I am not a sockpuppet. Robotam 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, any article that manage to use "false" or its variations four times in the same paragraph is obviously attacking the group. Add to that the fact that the only prominent piece of writing is said paragraph and you can't help but delete. This could probably be speedied. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the current article stays as is, it's not NPOV. If cleaned up (read:rewritten) it can stay. No speedy because it's was already speedied (and removed by User:NawlinWiki). ColourBurst 00:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ColourBurst. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the article is an attack by the User who created the article. Ccson 13:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it. 64.131.205.160 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an attack/agenda page to me, especially given its complete lack of sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete There seems to be a lot of reserach which would prove validity. 205.188.116.68 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you haven't. This piece now argues a logical fallacy, that his POV both is and is not in dispute, that it has and has not been disputed, that it is fact/true and controversy. And it is still a hatchet job on another entry and organization (Alpha Phi Alpha), that the author created because he was asked by various admin to stop editing and reverting the article on Alpha Phi Alpha to his POV. Robotam 15:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition author unilaterally deleted AfD from page using Anon IP. Robotam 16:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no my friend, sorry. Mykungfu 20:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robotam[edit]

Robotam along with other users is engaged in a request for comment against the creater of the article. As documented below at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NinjaNubian.

No administrators have asked for individuals to stop editing on THIS article. Robotam is a sockpuppet account. Everything here is documented with references. Mykungfu 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

evidence[edit]

http://groups.msn.com/NPHCArchivePhotoSociety/yourwebpage2.msnw

this article details some of the controversy that still exists

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=12053

http://www.usca.edu/nununupes/history.htm

www.stp.uh.edu/vol69/138/news/news3.html

Mykungfu 15:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


coordinated attack[edit]

robotam[edit]

Came around september 6. his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC. I believe him to be a sockpuppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Robotam has made it a pesonal mission to destroy pages created by ninjanubian as can be documented by his actions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sigma_Pi_Phi

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Nu


he opens up dispute pages for the sake of wasting everyone times..

he is also reverting pages twice in the past 90 minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alpha_Phi_Alpha&action=history

Again my friend, sorry, no. Robotam 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)19:17, posted by robotam[reply]

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

The result was Delete Unmaintainable listcruft that could easily have been speedied as CSD A1/A3. Xoloz 16:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal porn actress[edit]

Not a neccessary page to have on wikipedia. Dave 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete listcruft that will grow without bounds and never be verifiable. Valrith 21:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can media files be sourced for verifiability?--Onitsuh 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved into lists of pornographic actors where auto erotic list can be found--Onitsuh 21:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:while i agree that it's not necessary, i would point out that there are hundreds of lists that are not necessary here so that is probably not a good reason for deletion. Mapetite526 21:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be verified, as many of the wikipedia articles on pornographic actresses state that the actresses are known for anal scenes and there are award categories for anal scenes at adult film emmys AVN's? I think, or whatever they are called. It should be moved inside the list of pornographic actors List of porn stars list--Onitsuh 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a separate article listing a different niche within the pornography industry is valid. Wikipedia.com browsers may want access to specific actresses who have, I assume, solely performed anal sex in their career. All a matter of convenience, for them that is. Hellwing 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend consulting with the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars on this AfD discussion. As far as I can tell, this article is not intended to be a list of porn actresses who limited their activity on film/video exclusively to anal sex, but to any porn actresses who ever performed anal sex on film/video. If so, it would probably be a long and not particularly useful list, because I don't believe such activity is rare among contemporary porn actresses. --75.0.159.208 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Many modern porn actresses have made their mark in the industry through their skills in anal sex. I doubt any lasting porn actor has performed only one single classifiable pornographic act, however there are many actresses who are known primarily for anal acts.--Onitsuh 07:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Valrith. --Vsion 04:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it can be verified. The article just needs pictures and to cite film references. Mostly pictures, though. Anomo 07:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Im not sure what you want in terms of pictures. showing anal sex is probably against wiki standards and as far as references are concerned all of the material links to actresses articles which state the nature of their work.--Onitsuh 08:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then this article should just be made into a category. Anomo 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of porn stars is the right place. Pavel Vozenilek 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into Category:Anal porn actress and put articles about the porn actresses in this category who are anal. Anomo 06:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Had to comment about the grammer - it would be actresses who do anal rather then who are anal.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I added the contents of Anal porn actress to Category:Anal porn actress, yet Category:Anal porn actress does not show up under List of porn stars --[[User:Onitsuh|Onitsuh], how do you put articles about porn actresses who do anal in this category? 08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: I've fixed Category:Anal porn actress so that it shows up under List of porn stars. I don't think this works much better as a category than as an article, though. Valrith 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You put [[Category:Anal porn actress]] in all of the actresses that once were in the list. Then at the bottom of the article, click the category and you see who is in the category. Anomo 22:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for kicks and giggles, I went ahead and followed Anomo's advice for all of the blue links... Valrith 22:58, 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. --Gray Porpoise 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"amie rodgers"[edit]

Contested PROD. Delete as failing WP:V; no WP:RS indicating this person meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The version I looked at claimed this person was a model. Now... nothing. Possibly a CSD A7 now? --Kinu t/c 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Author removed speedy deletion tags, without a stated reason. No importance asserted. --Gray Porpoise 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Fan-1967 00:14, 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. (aeropagitica) 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Jurassic Park[edit]

No assertion of notability for this rpg community/forum. — AKADriver ☎ 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, the website doesn't even have its own domain.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN web forum. Tiny number of relevant ghits with many being wikipedia mirrors. --IslaySolomon 23:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIP (band)[edit]

Non-notable musical group. I previously speedy-deleted it, but its creator, Fibonacci, protested, so I am posting it here for additional opinions. —tregoweth (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I've google searched "Boys into Party" (which is what BIP stands for), and the only results I got were Wikipedia mirror sites and porn sites. Even so, the band does have an allmusic profile and they have released one album on a major label, though that still isn't enough to pass the WP:MUSIC criterias.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait... they have a new album, Sigue bailando. Wouldn't that make TWO albums, meeting WP:MUSIC and earning a keep? PT (s-s-s-s) 18:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that three - they released Amor Prohibido before that. Keep. --Fibonacci 17:45, 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 schools. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hagan Elemantary School[edit]

non notable elementary school. All relivent info is already in the article it should be merged into. This AFD should also apply to Nassau Elemantary School American Patriot 1776 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Public schools are notable, but this does need WP:V to be kept. Arbusto 22:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that public high schools are notable, but an elementary school? American Patriot 1776 23:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Public money creates public institutions, and therefore they are notable in those areas. On the other hand, my recent nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute is private, unaccredited status without any notablity. However, I will change my vote to weak keep. But sources will be needed to keep the article. Arbusto 23:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all schools are notable, only those with notable alumni or notable background. Since this school doesn't seem to have either, merge it into Spackenkill Union Free School District.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should be moved to Hagan Elementary School if anything. --Alex (talk here) 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete elementary schools are generally not notable, and this school appears to fail all seven points of WP:SCHOOL. TJ Spyke 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care that much about elementary schools. If the articles are reasonably well written, I'm OK with allowing room for them even if the notability is dubious. However, this article looks very thin (only a couple of lines) so merge it with Spackenkill Union Free School District. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons provided at User:Silensor/Schools, this should be expanded rather than deleted. Silensor 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this school is notable, atleast to people from Poughkeepsie, New York. bbx 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silensor and allow for organic growth. --Myles Long 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arbustoo and comments made above, notable to residents of Dutchess County. Yamaguchi先生 23:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fernandes[edit]

I put the notability tag on this, and someone pulled it off. This is a person with an unaccredited doctorate (it is called a diploma mill by some) who is a teacher at Shepherds Bible College (an unaccredited place without a wikipedia article and also referred to as a degree mill).

Subject fails WP:BIO, and article asserts no notability. Arbusto 22:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Justin 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable author, debater, and evangelist. --Joshy194 12:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is Joshy194 first and only ever edit. He even knows how to sign his user name. Arbusto 16:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His publications aren't so tremendously notable as to accord him any notability. For that matter, the fact that everything leads to a Fernandes or Fernandes-linked source makes me suspicious. Claims that his debates with Dan Barker make him notable are also suspect - Dan Barker debates anyone he comes across, pretty much. Captainktainer * Talk 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and per nom -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 17:37, 17 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 nomination withdrawn. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mule Deer[edit]

This entry fails WP:BIO. There is no biographical information beyond a list of shows that he has appeared in. Prod removed by creator and speedy failed as the television appearances were deemed as an assertion of notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gay Cdn (talk • contribs) .

  • Keep This article is, indeed, an atrocious non-article eyesore, but the man has an IMDb profile. Keep it, clean it, stub it. Swarthington (how swarthy are you?) 22:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An IMDB page doesn't mean anything. Minor extras have IMDB pages. My friend who was an extra in a movie once 20 years ago has one. This guy is probably notable, but the article is just a resume. It's useless and beyond mere revision.Trnj2000 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of film and TV work spanning several decades, including recent Letterman appearances. For a stand-up comedian, that's pretty notable. Also performed with the Oak Ridge Boys, apparently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable comedian from the 70's. Between "Gary Mule Deer" and "Gary Muledeer" he gets 30,000 GHits, which is pretty good for someone who had the height of his career before the internet was invented. Fan-1967 00:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've drastically edited the article into a stub that my be useful. Swarthington (how swarthy are you?) 00:45, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Showerman[edit]

Fails to meet minimum criteria for inclusion for actors according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) Trnj2000 22:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pathetic as it was, he did have the lead role in George of the Jungle 2, which, even if it did go straight to video, was from a major studio and had notable co-stars and director. Fan-1967 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to echo Fan-1967's sentiments on this one. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Latham[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Article asserts no notability, I get less than 2,000 google hits, which includes this article as hit #4 and Lance's unrelated to this one.[50] Arbusto 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 04:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The wiki article doesn't mention awana. Your cyberhymnal.org bio claims he "co-founded" it; whatever that means, whatever year, and with who? Lastly if he is a notable musician please provide WP:RS that he meets WP:MUSIC. There are some serious WP:V issues, and a keep vote shouldn't be made because someone's personal website makes claims. As of now the article still asserts nothing. Arbusto 07:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as he helped develop the Awana curriculum, which is apparently popular in evangelical circles. Sort of a combination of scouting and Sunday school. Article barely touches on this.--Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoFreak 05:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. His contribution to Awana is notable, as per his biography. Rockpocket 07:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep He has a biography written by Dave Breese who is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Bagginator 08:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to amazon.com, this "book" (ASIN: B0006YL5G8) is an unknown binding published by Awana in 1978. So its self-published by Latham's group a decade before he died. It isn't even in print and has Amazon.com Sales Rank: of 2,191,303-- Just 190,000 shy of cracking the top two million. That "book" does not pass notablity criteria. Arbusto 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - older stuff google is poor-ish (and not exactly the kind of thing that easily makes its way) but thereis some essence of verifiablility/.encyclopaedic value here. Be nice if it were better referenced, but I buy the idea that it's somehow verifiable. WilyD 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will need to be expanded and referenced, tho.--Cúchullain t/c 04:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments made above. Yamaguchi先生 23:15, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Witch Alone[edit]

Does this book blurb need its own article? The author has her own page where her books are all listed, but only this book has its own page. The summary seems very much a blurb for the book. If there is something notable about the author's beliefs/practices, it seems to me it'd be better on the author's page. Eileen R 23:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there's no real notablity requirement for books, see [51] —Hanuman Das 03:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are proposed guidelines for determining whether books are notable; maybe this book satisfies the proposed guidelines but I would need to see more evidence to be convinced of that. --Metropolitan90 03:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect--Peta 06:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason has been given for deletion. -999 (Talk) 14:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry Eileen, the book does appear on many libraries shelves' and is spread over the world. That alone allows the book to pass the current notability guidelines. An ODIN search of the Tri-State area (MN,ND,SD) shows 41 libraries have this book on their shelves. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--Schonken 11:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_13&oldid=1116878423"